Brad S Karon1, Jeffrey W Meeusen2, Sandra C Bryant3. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Karon.bradley@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We retrospectively studied the impact of glucose meter error on the efficacy of glycemic control after cardiovascular surgery. METHOD: Adult patients undergoing intravenous insulin glycemic control therapy after cardiovascular surgery, with 12-24 consecutive glucose meter measurements used to make insulin dosing decisions, had glucose values analyzed to determine glycemic variability by both standard deviation (SD) and continuous overall net glycemic action (CONGA), and percentage glucose values in target glucose range (110-150 mg/dL). Information was recorded for 70 patients during each of 2 periods, with different glucose meters used to measure glucose and dose insulin during each period but no other changes to the glycemic control protocol. Accuracy and precision of each meter were also compared using whole blood specimens from ICU patients. RESULTS: Glucose meter 1 (GM1) had median bias of 11 mg/dL compared to a laboratory reference method, while glucose meter 2 (GM2) had a median bias of 1 mg/dL. GM1 and GM2 differed little in precision (CV = 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively). Compared to the period when GM1 was used to make insulin dosing decisions, patients whose insulin dose was managed by GM2 demonstrated reduced glycemic variability as measured by both SD (13.7 vs 21.6 mg/dL, P < .0001) and CONGA (13.5 vs 19.4 mg/dL, P < .0001) and increased percentage glucose values in target range (74.5 vs 66.7%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing glucose meter error (bias) was associated with decreased glycemic variability and increased percentage of values in target glucose range for patients placed on intravenous insulin therapy following cardiovascular surgery.
BACKGROUND: We retrospectively studied the impact of glucose meter error on the efficacy of glycemic control after cardiovascular surgery. METHOD: Adult patients undergoing intravenous insulin glycemic control therapy after cardiovascular surgery, with 12-24 consecutive glucose meter measurements used to make insulin dosing decisions, had glucose values analyzed to determine glycemic variability by both standard deviation (SD) and continuous overall net glycemic action (CONGA), and percentage glucose values in target glucose range (110-150 mg/dL). Information was recorded for 70 patients during each of 2 periods, with different glucose meters used to measure glucose and dose insulin during each period but no other changes to the glycemic control protocol. Accuracy and precision of each meter were also compared using whole blood specimens from ICU patients. RESULTS:Glucose meter 1 (GM1) had median bias of 11 mg/dL compared to a laboratory reference method, while glucose meter 2 (GM2) had a median bias of 1 mg/dL. GM1 and GM2 differed little in precision (CV = 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively). Compared to the period when GM1 was used to make insulin dosing decisions, patients whose insulin dose was managed by GM2 demonstrated reduced glycemic variability as measured by both SD (13.7 vs 21.6 mg/dL, P < .0001) and CONGA (13.5 vs 19.4 mg/dL, P < .0001) and increased percentage glucose values in target range (74.5 vs 66.7%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing glucose meter error (bias) was associated with decreased glycemic variability and increased percentage of values in target glucose range for patients placed on intravenous insulin therapy following cardiovascular surgery.
Authors: Brad S Karon; Laurie Griesmann; Renee Scott; Sandra C Bryant; Jeffrey A Dubois; Terry L Shirey; Steven Presti; Paula J Santrach Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Nam K Tran; Zachary R Godwin; Jennifer C Bockhold; Anthony G Passerini; Julian Cheng; Morgan Ingemason Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Brad S Karon; Leslie J Donato; Chelsie M Larsen; Lindsay K Siebenaler; Amy E Wells; Christina M Wood-Wentz; Mary E Shirk-Marienau; Timothy B Curry Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Yin Ba; Jin Xu; Lin Yuan; Haiyan Zhu; Yipei Yang; Mei Mei Lam; Shulian Zhang; Mili Xiao; Jiayin Xu; Rong Zhang; Chao Chen Journal: BMJ Paediatr Open Date: 2018-10-23