Literature DB >> 25161144

Modeling of effect of glucose sensor errors on insulin dosage and glucose bolus computed by LOGIC-Insulin.

Tom Van Herpe1, Bart De Moor2, Greet Van den Berghe3, Dieter Mesotten3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective and safe glycemic control in critically ill patients requires accurate glucose sensors and adequate insulin dosage calculators. The LOGIC-Insulin calculator for glycemic control has recently been validated in the LOGIC-1 randomized controlled trial. In this study, we aimed to determine the allowable error for intermittent and continuous glucose sensors, on the basis of the LOGIC-Insulin calculator.
METHODS: A gaussian simulation model with a varying bias (0%-20%) and CV (-20% to +20%) simulated blood glucose values from the LOGIC-1 study (n = 149 patients) in 10 Monte Carlo steps. A clinical error grid system was developed to compare the simulated LOGIC-Insulin-directed intervention with the nominal intervention (0% bias, 0% CV). The severity of error measuring the clinical effect of the simulated LOGIC-Insulin intervention was graded as type B, C, and D errors. Type D errors were classified as acutely life-threatening (0% probability preferred).
RESULTS: The probability of all types of errors was lower for continuous sensors compared with intermittent sensors. The maximum total error (TE), defined as the first TE introducing a type B/C/D error, was similar for both sensor types. To avoid type D errors, TEs <15.7% for intermittent sensors and <17.8% for continuous sensors were required. Mean absolute relative difference thresholds for type C errors were 7.1% for intermittent and 11.0% for continuous sensors.
CONCLUSIONS: Continuous sensors had a lower probability for clinical errors than intermittent sensors at the same accuracy level. These simulations demonstrated the suitability of the LOGIC-Insulin control system for use with continuous, as well as intermittent, sensors.
© 2014 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25161144     DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.227017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of Accuracy Guidelines for Hospital Glucose Meters.

Authors:  Cynthia Foss Bowman; James H Nichols
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-01-25

Review 2.  Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Alison F Smith; Bethany Shinkins; Peter S Hall; Claire T Hulme; Mike P Messenger
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Significant Published Articles for Pharmacy Nutrition Support Practice in 2017.

Authors:  Roland N Dickerson; Vanessa J Kumpf; Angela L Bingham; Allison B Blackmer; Todd W Canada; Lingtak-Neander Chan; Sarah V Cogle; Anne M Tucker
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2018-05-30

4.  The impact of measurement frequency on the domains of glycemic control in the critically ill--a Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  James S Krinsley; David E Bruns; James C Boyd
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-01-06

Review 5.  Glucose Control in the ICU: A Continuing Story.

Authors:  Jean-Charles Preiser; J Geoffrey Chase; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey I Joseph; James S Krinsley; Christophe De Block; Thomas Desaive; Luc Foubert; Pierre Kalfon; Ulrike Pielmeier; Tom Van Herpe; Jan Wernerman
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-11-01

6.  Accuracy of Blood Glucose Measurement and Blood Glucose Targets.

Authors:  Gert-Jan Eerdekens; Steffen Rex; Dieter Mesotten
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-02-11

7.  Round Table Discussion on Inpatient Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring at the International Hospital Diabetes Meeting.

Authors:  Amisha Wallia; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Stanley A Nasraway; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-08-22

8.  Manual versus Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II (MANAGE II).

Authors:  Cláudia Righy Shinotsuka; Alexandre Brasseur; David Fagnoul; Timothy So; Jean-Louis Vincent; Jean-Charles Preiser
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 9.  Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jennifer L Dickson; Antoine Pironet; Yeong Shiong Chiew; Christopher G Pretty; Geoffrey M Shaw; Balazs Benyo; Knut Moeller; Soroush Safaei; Merryn Tawhai; Peter Hunter; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.819

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.