BACKGROUND: Different reference methods are used for the accuracy assessment of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. The effect of using venous, arterialized-venous, or capillary reference measurements on CGM accuracy is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated 21 individuals with type 1 diabetes using a capillary calibrated CGM system. Venous or arterialized-venous reference glucose samples were taken every 15 min at two separate visits and assessed per YSI 2300 STAT Plus. Arterialization was achieved by heated-hand technique. Capillary samples were collected hourly during the venous reference visit. The investigation sequence (venous or arterialized-venous) was randomized. Effectiveness of arterialization was measured by comparing free venous oxygen pressure (PO2) of both visit days. Primary endpoint was the median absolute relative difference (ARD). RESULTS:Median ARD using arterialized-venous reference samples was not different from venous samples (point estimated difference 0.52%, P = 0.181). When comparing the three reference methods, median ARD was also not different over the full glycemic range (venous 9.0% [n = 681], arterialized-venous 8.3% [n = 684], and capillary 8.1% [n = 205], P = 0.216), nor over the separate glucose ranges. Arterialization was successful (PO2 venous 5.4 kPa vs. arterialized-venous 8.9 kPa, P < 0.001). Arterialized-venous glucose was significantly higher than venous glucose and numerically higher than capillary glucose (arterialized-venous 142 mg/dL vs. venous 129 mg/dL [P < 0.001] and vs. capillary 134 mg/dL [P = 0.231]). Inconvenience related to arterialization included transient mild edema and redness of the hand in 4 out of 21 (19%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of venous, arterialized-venous, or capillary reference measurements did not significantly impact CGM accuracy. Venous reference seems preferable due to its ease of operation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Different reference methods are used for the accuracy assessment of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. The effect of using venous, arterialized-venous, or capillary reference measurements on CGM accuracy is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated 21 individuals with type 1 diabetes using a capillary calibrated CGM system. Venous or arterialized-venous reference glucose samples were taken every 15 min at two separate visits and assessed per YSI 2300 STAT Plus. Arterialization was achieved by heated-hand technique. Capillary samples were collected hourly during the venous reference visit. The investigation sequence (venous or arterialized-venous) was randomized. Effectiveness of arterialization was measured by comparing free venous oxygen pressure (PO2) of both visit days. Primary endpoint was the median absolute relative difference (ARD). RESULTS: Median ARD using arterialized-venous reference samples was not different from venous samples (point estimated difference 0.52%, P = 0.181). When comparing the three reference methods, median ARD was also not different over the full glycemic range (venous 9.0% [n = 681], arterialized-venous 8.3% [n = 684], and capillary 8.1% [n = 205], P = 0.216), nor over the separate glucose ranges. Arterialization was successful (PO2 venous 5.4 kPa vs. arterialized-venous 8.9 kPa, P < 0.001). Arterialized-venous glucose was significantly higher than venous glucose and numerically higher than capillary glucose (arterialized-venous 142 mg/dL vs. venous 129 mg/dL [P < 0.001] and vs. capillary 134 mg/dL [P = 0.231]). Inconvenience related to arterialization included transient mild edema and redness of the hand in 4 out of 21 (19%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of venous, arterialized-venous, or capillary reference measurements did not significantly impact CGM accuracy. Venous reference seems preferable due to its ease of operation.