Marjolein K Sechterberger1, Peter H J van der Voort2, Paul J Strasma3, J Hans DeVries4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands m.k.sechterberger@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Intensive Care, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands TIAS school for Business & Society, Tilburg University, Netherlands. 3. GluMetrics Inc, Irvine, CA, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The GluCath® intra-arterial continuous glucose monitoring (IA-CGM) system uses a novel quenched chemical fluorescence sensing mechanism to optically measure blood glucose when deployed in the radial artery. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the IA-CGM and the FreeStyle Navigator® subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (SC-CGM) system with standard care. METHODS: After admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), the IA-CGM was inserted via a 20 gauge radial arterial study catheter and the SC-CGM was placed at the abdominal wall of postoperative cardiac surgery patients with an expected ICU length of stay > 24 hours. Each device was calibrated according to manufacturer instructions. Glucose values of both CGM systems were blinded for the clinical staff. Reference blood glucose samples were collected from the study catheter every 1-2 hours for at least 24 hours and analyzed on a Radiometer ABL blood gas analyzer. RESULTS: The IA-CGM and SC-CGM sensors were successfully inserted in 8 subjects. Accuracy assessment was performed with 183 paired points: 85.8% of the IA-CGM measurements and 84.2% of the SC-CGM measurements met ISO 15197:2003 glucometer criteria (within 20%) across a 79-248 mg/dl (4.4-13.8 mmol/L) glucose range. Overall ± SD mean absolute relative difference was 12.3 ± 11.3% for IA-CGM and 11.1 ± 8.3% for SC-CGM (difference -1.2%, 95% CI -3.3 to 0.8; P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: The IA-CGM system directly measured arterial blood glucose and did not interfere with clinical care. However, accuracy was similar to that of the less invasive SC-CGM device.
BACKGROUND: The GluCath® intra-arterial continuous glucose monitoring (IA-CGM) system uses a novel quenched chemical fluorescence sensing mechanism to optically measure blood glucose when deployed in the radial artery. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the IA-CGM and the FreeStyle Navigator® subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (SC-CGM) system with standard care. METHODS: After admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), the IA-CGM was inserted via a 20 gauge radial arterial study catheter and the SC-CGM was placed at the abdominal wall of postoperative cardiac surgery patients with an expected ICU length of stay > 24 hours. Each device was calibrated according to manufacturer instructions. Glucose values of both CGM systems were blinded for the clinical staff. Reference blood glucose samples were collected from the study catheter every 1-2 hours for at least 24 hours and analyzed on a Radiometer ABL blood gas analyzer. RESULTS: The IA-CGM and SC-CGM sensors were successfully inserted in 8 subjects. Accuracy assessment was performed with 183 paired points: 85.8% of the IA-CGM measurements and 84.2% of the SC-CGM measurements met ISO 15197:2003 glucometer criteria (within 20%) across a 79-248 mg/dl (4.4-13.8 mmol/L) glucose range. Overall ± SD mean absolute relative difference was 12.3 ± 11.3% for IA-CGM and 11.1 ± 8.3% for SC-CGM (difference -1.2%, 95% CI -3.3 to 0.8; P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: The IA-CGM system directly measured arterial blood glucose and did not interfere with clinical care. However, accuracy was similar to that of the less invasive SC-CGM device.
Authors: Richard Brunner; Reinhard Kitzberger; Wolfgang Miehsler; Harald Herkner; Christian Madl; Ulrike Holzinger Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Emmy Rood; Robert Jan Bosman; Johan Ids van der Spoel; Paul Taylor; Durk Freark Zandstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Oliver J Flower; Simon Bird; Lewis Macken; Naomi Hammond; Elizabeth Yarad; Frances Bass; Charles Fisher; Paul Strasma; Simon Finfer Journal: Crit Care Resusc Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Susan J Logtenberg; Nanne Kleefstra; Ferdinand T Snellen; Klaas H Groenier; Robbert J Slingerland; Arno P Nierich; Henk J Bilo Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Sarah E Siegelaar; Temo Barwari; Jeroen Hermanides; Wim Stooker; Peter H J van der Voort; J Hans DeVries Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daphne T Boom; Marjolein K Sechterberger; Saskia Rijkenberg; Susanne Kreder; Rob J Bosman; Jos Pj Wester; Ilse van Stijn; J Hans DeVries; Peter Hj van der Voort Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Amisha Wallia; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; David C Klonoff; Daniel J Rubin; Sherita Hill Golden; Curtiss B Cook; Bithika Thompson Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-04-21
Authors: Paul J Strasma; Simon Finfer; Oliver Flower; Brian Hipszer; Mikhail Kosiborod; Lewis Macken; Marjolein Sechterberger; Peter H J van der Voort; J Hans DeVries; Jeffrey I Joseph Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-05-12
Authors: M A Punke; C Decker; M Petzoldt; D A Reuter; K H Wodack; H Reichenspurner; M Kubik; S Kluge Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; Ananda Basu; Suzanne Lohnes; James H Nichols; Elias K Spanakis; Juan Espinoza; Nadine E Palermo; Dessa Garnett Awadjie; Leigh Bak; Bruce Buckingham; Curtiss B Cook; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Tonya Newman; David N O'Neal; Michaela Rickert; David B Sacks; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Amisha Wallia; Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Julia Han; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-28
Authors: Sigrid C J van Steen; Saskia Rijkenberg; Jacqueline Limpens; Peter H J van der Voort; Jeroen Hermanides; J Hans DeVries Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 3.576