Literature DB >> 29103302

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measures Can Be Used for Glycemic Control in the ICU: An In-Silico Study.

Tony Zhou1, Jennifer L Dickson1, Geoffrey M Shaw2, J Geoffrey Chase1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has become more prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU), offering potential benefits of increased safety and reduced workload in glycemic control (GC). The drift and higher point accuracy errors of CGM devices over traditional intermittent blood glucose (BG) measures have so far limited their application in the ICU. This study delineates the trade-offs of performance, safety and workload that CGM sensors provide in GC protocols.
METHODS: Clinical data from 236 patients were used for clinically validated virtual trials. A CGM-enabled version of the STAR GC protocol was used to evaluate the use of guard rails and rolling windows. Safety was assessed through percentage of patients who had a severe hypoglycemic episode (BG < 40 mg/dl) as well as percentage of resampled BG < 72 mg/dl. Performance was assessed as percentage of resampled measurements in the 80-126 mg/dl and the 80-144 mg/dl target bands. Workload was measured by number of manual BG measures per day.
RESULTS: CGM-enabled versions of STAR decreased the number of required blood draws by up to 74%, while maintaining performance (76.6% BG measurements in the 80-126 mg/dl range vs 62.8% clinically, 87.9% in the 80-144 mg/dl range vs 83.7% clinically) and maintaining patient safety (1.13% of patients experienced a severe hypoglycemic event vs 0.85% clinically, 1.37% of BG measurements were less than 72 mg/dl vs 0.51% clinically).
CONCLUSION: CGM sensor traces were reproduced in virtual trials to guide GC. Existing GC protocols such as STAR may need to be adjusted only slightly to gain the benefits of the increased temporal measurements of CGM sensors, through which workload may be significantly decreased while maintaining GC performance and safety.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood glucose; continuous glucose monitoring; glycemic control; modeling; sensor; simulation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29103302      PMCID: PMC5761989          DOI: 10.1177/1932296817738791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  85 in total

1.  Model-based insulin and nutrition administration for tight glycaemic control in critical care.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Lotz; Aaron LeCompte; Jason Wong; Jessica Lin; Timothy Lonergan; Michael Willacy; Christopher E Hann
Journal:  Curr Drug Deliv       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Accuracy of a first-generation intravenous blood glucose monitoring system in subjects with diabetes mellitus: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Timothy Bailey; Angela Gulino; Michael J Higgins; Jacob Leach; Apurv Kamath; Peter C Simpson
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-11-01

3.  Performance evaluation of the MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system during patient home use.

Authors:  T M Gross; B W Bode; D Einhorn; D M Kayne; J H Reed; N H White; J J Mastrototaro
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 6.118

4.  In silico preclinical trials: a proof of concept in closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Boris P Kovatchev; Marc Breton; Chiara Dalla Man; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-01

5.  Glycemic levels in critically ill patients: are normoglycemia and low variability associated with improved outcomes?

Authors:  Matthew Signal; Aaron Le Compte; Geoffrey M Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-09-01

6.  Hyperglycaemia and mortality in critically ill patients. A prospective study.

Authors:  Christian Christiansen; Palle Toft; Hans Skriver Jørgensen; Søren Kaeseler Andersen; Else Tønnesen
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-05-18       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  A comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors: the Navigator, G4 Platinum, and Enlite.

Authors:  Edward R Damiano; Katherine McKeon; Firas H El-Khatib; Hui Zheng; David M Nathan; Steven J Russell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-04-21

8.  Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Daniel C Wiener; Robin J Larson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  A simulation model of glucose regulation in the critically ill.

Authors:  Roman Hovorka; Ludovic J Chassin; Martin Ellmerer; Johannes Plank; Malgorzata E Wilinska
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 2.833

10.  Variability of insulin sensitivity during the first 4 days of critical illness: implications for tight glycemic control.

Authors:  Christopher G Pretty; Aaron J Le Compte; J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Jean-Charles Preiser; Sophie Penning; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 6.925

View more
  6 in total

1.  Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill.

Authors:  Pedro D Salinas; Carlos E Mendez
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-01-13

2.  Fifteen-minute Frequency of Glucose Measurements and the Use of Threshold Alarms: Impact on Mitigating Dysglycemia in Critically Ill Patients.

Authors:  Grant V Bochicchio; Stanley A Nasraway; Laura J Moore; Anthony P Furnary; Eden A Nohra; Kelly M Bochicchio; James C Boyd; David I Bruns; Irl B Hirsch; Jean-Charles Preiser; James S Krinsley
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-11-19

3.  Assessment of Glycemic Control Protocol (STAR) Through Compliance Analysis Amongst Malaysian ICU Patients.

Authors:  Athirah Abdul Razak; Asma Abu-Samah; Normy Norfiza Abdul Razak; Ummu Jamaludin; Fatanah Suhaimi; Azrina Ralib; Mohd Basri Mat Nor; Christopher Pretty; Jennifer Laura Knopp; James Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2020-06-04

Review 4.  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

5.  Risk and reward: extending stochastic glycaemic control intervals to reduce workload.

Authors:  Vincent Uyttendaele; Jennifer L Knopp; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 2.819

6.  Estimating Enhanced Endogenous Glucose Production in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance.

Authors:  Anane Yahia; Ákos Szlávecz; Jennifer L Knopp; Normy Norfiza Abdul Razak; Asma Abu Samah; Geoff Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase; Balazs Benyo
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-06-02
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.