Tony Zhou1, Jennifer L Dickson1, Geoffrey M Shaw2, J Geoffrey Chase1. 1. 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand. 2. 2 Department of Intensive Care, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Science, University of Otago, New Zealand.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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