Joan Bach Nielsen1, Caroline Bruun Abild2, Ane Mathilde Pedersen2, Steen Bønløkke Pedersen2, Bjørn Richelsen2. 1. Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 2nd Floor, Building 3C, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, Aarhus C, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark. joanni@rm.dk. 2. Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, 2nd Floor, Building 3C, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, Aarhus C, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) alters glucose metabolism and can cause postprandial hypoglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been proposed as an evaluation tool in hypoglycemic RYGB individuals. The objective of this study is to investigate the use of CGM in clinical decision-making including diagnosing hypoglycemia and evaluating treatment effects. Furthermore, we aim to assess its accuracy in RYGB-operated individuals. METHODS: Thirteen RYGB individuals with symptomatic hypoglycemia and 13 asymptomatic RYGB individuals underwent CGM for 5 days. During this period, a mixed-meal test with concomitant plasma glucose (PG) measurements was performed. Furthermore, the RYGB individuals followed a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for 1 day and maintained their ordinary diet (OD) for the rest of the period. RESULTS: LCD reduced the CGM-determined glycemic variability of the mean interstitial fluid glucose (IFG) significantly compared to OD (p < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that low blood glucose index (e.g., the frequency and amplitude of hypoglycemic events) is the most reliable parameter related to the development of symptomatic hypoglycemia, with a sensitivity of 0.91 (confidence interval [CI] 0.59; 1.00) and a specificity of 0.77 (CI 0.46; 0.95). However, CGM, measuring the IFG in the subcutaneous adipose tissue, overestimated the minimum glucose levels by 1.1 ± 0.9 mmol/l compared with PG. CONCLUSIONS: CGM was a good method for demonstrating increased glycemic variability among RYGB individuals and for displaying dietary effects on reducing this glycemic variability, including hypoglycemic events. In RYGB individuals, CGM-measured IFG overestimated the real glucose value by about 1 mmol/l in the hypoglycemic range. This should be taken into consideration if CGM is used to diagnose hypoglycemia after RYGB.
BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) alters glucose metabolism and can cause postprandial hypoglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been proposed as an evaluation tool in hypoglycemic RYGB individuals. The objective of this study is to investigate the use of CGM in clinical decision-making including diagnosing hypoglycemia and evaluating treatment effects. Furthermore, we aim to assess its accuracy in RYGB-operated individuals. METHODS: Thirteen RYGB individuals with symptomatic hypoglycemia and 13 asymptomatic RYGB individuals underwent CGM for 5 days. During this period, a mixed-meal test with concomitant plasma glucose (PG) measurements was performed. Furthermore, the RYGB individuals followed a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for 1 day and maintained their ordinary diet (OD) for the rest of the period. RESULTS:LCD reduced the CGM-determined glycemic variability of the mean interstitial fluid glucose (IFG) significantly compared to OD (p < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that low blood glucose index (e.g., the frequency and amplitude of hypoglycemic events) is the most reliable parameter related to the development of symptomatic hypoglycemia, with a sensitivity of 0.91 (confidence interval [CI] 0.59; 1.00) and a specificity of 0.77 (CI 0.46; 0.95). However, CGM, measuring the IFG in the subcutaneous adipose tissue, overestimated the minimum glucose levels by 1.1 ± 0.9 mmol/l compared with PG. CONCLUSIONS:CGM was a good method for demonstrating increased glycemic variability among RYGB individuals and for displaying dietary effects on reducing this glycemic variability, including hypoglycemic events. In RYGB individuals, CGM-measured IFG overestimated the real glucose value by about 1 mmol/l in the hypoglycemic range. This should be taken into consideration if CGM is used to diagnose hypoglycemia after RYGB.
Authors: D Eriksson-Hogling; D P Andersson; J Bäckdahl; J Hoffstedt; S Rössner; A Thorell; E Arner; P Arner; M Rydén Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: N B Jørgensen; S H Jacobsen; C Dirksen; K N Bojsen-Møller; L Naver; L Hvolris; T R Clausen; B S Wulff; D Worm; D Lindqvist Hansen; S Madsbad; J J Holst Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Boris P Kovatchev; Daniel J Cox; Anand Kumar; Linda Gonder-Frederick; William L Clarke Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2003 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Andreas Liebl; Helmut R Henrichs; Lutz Heinemann; Guido Freckmann; Eberhard Biermann; Andreas Thomas Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-03-01
Authors: Todd Andrew Kellogg; John P Bantle; Daniel B Leslie; James B Redmond; Bridget Slusarek; Therese Swan; Henry Buchwald; Sayeed Ikramuddin Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Oliver Schnell; Katharine Barnard; Richard Bergenstal; Emanuele Bosi; Satish Garg; Bruno Guerci; Thomas Haak; Irl B Hirsch; Linong Ji; Shashank R Joshi; Maarten Kamp; Lori Laffel; Chantal Mathieu; William H Polonsky; Frank Snoek; Philip Home Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Daniel Lee; Jonathan M Dreyfuss; Amanda Sheehan; Alexa Puleio; Christopher M Mulla; Mary Elizabeth Patti Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Carolina B Lobato; Sofia S Pereira; Marta Guimarães; Tiago Morais; Pedro Oliveira; Jorge P M de Carvalho; Mário Nora; Mariana P Monteiro Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 4.379