Literature DB >> 29218549

Accuracy and reliability of a subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring device in critically ill patients.

S Rijkenberg1, S C van Steen2,3, J H DeVries3, P H J van der Voort2,4.   

Abstract

Subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may have benefits in achieving glycemic control in critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of the FreeStyle Navigator I in critically ill patients and to assess patient related factors influencing the accuracy and reliability. This study is a retrospective analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial conducted in a 20-bed mixed intensive care unit. Analytical accuracy, clinical accuracy and reliability were assessed against arterial blood glucose samples as reference. Assessment was according to recent consensus recommendations with median absolute relative difference (median ARD), Bland-Altman plots, the ISO system accuracy standards (ISO 15197:2013) and Clarke error grid analysis (CEG). We analyzed 2840 paired measurements from 155 critically ill patients. The median ARD of all paired values was 13.3 [6.9-22.1]%. The median ARD was significantly higher in both the hypoglycemic and the hyperglycemic range (32.4 [12.1-53.4]% and 18.7 [10.7-28.3]% respectively, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of - 0.82 mmol/L with a lower limit of agreement (LOA) of - 3.88 mmol/L and an upper LOA of 2.24 mmol/L. A total of 1626 (57.3%) values met the ISO-2013, standards and 1,334 (47%) CGM values were within 12.5% from the reference value. CEG: 71.0% zone A, 25.8% zone B, 0.5% zone C, 2.5% zone D, 0.3% zone E. The median overall real-time data display time was 94.0 ± 14.9% and in 23% of the patients, the sensor measured < 95% of the time. Additionally, data gaps longer than 30 min were found in 48% of the patients. The analytical accuracy of the FreeStyle Navigator I in critically ill patients was suboptimal. Furthermore, the clinical accuracy, did not meet the required standards. The reliability was satisfactory, however, in almost a quarter of the patients the realtime data display was < 95%. The accuracy was considerably and significantly lower in hyper- and hypoglycemic ranges.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuous glucose monitor; Glucose, intensive care; Subcutaneous

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29218549     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-017-0086-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  48 in total

1.  Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Authors:  W L Clarke; D Cox; L A Gonder-Frederick; W Carter; S L Pohl
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  Feasibility and precision of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

Authors:  Hansjörg Aust; Gerhard Dinges; Stefan Nardi-Hiebl; Thilo Koch; Ralph Lattermann; Thomas Schricker; Leopold H J Eberhart
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 2.628

3.  Microcirculation and its relation to continuous subcutaneous glucose sensor accuracy in cardiac surgery patients in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Sarah E Siegelaar; Temo Barwari; Jeroen Hermanides; Peter H J van der Voort; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-07-21       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Randomized Evaluation of Glycemic Control in the Medical Intensive Care Unit Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (REGIMEN Trial).

Authors:  Christophe E M De Block; Jens Gios; Nina Verheyen; Begoña Manuel-y-Keenoy; Peter Rogiers; Philippe G Jorens; Cosimo Scuffi; Luc F Van Gaal
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 6.118

5.  Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy: a randomized controlled trial in medical and surgical critically ill patients.

Authors:  Yaseen M Arabi; Ousama C Dabbagh; Hani M Tamim; Abdullah A Al-Shimemeri; Ziad A Memish; Samir H Haddad; Sofia J Syed; Hema R Giridhar; Asgar H Rishu; Mouhamad O Al-Daker; Salim H Kahoul; Riette J Britts; Maram H Sakkijha
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Comparison of accuracy and safety of the SEVEN and the Navigator continuous glucose monitoring systems.

Authors:  Satish K Garg; James Smith; Christie Beatson; Benita Lopez-Baca; Mary Voelmle; Peter A Gottlieb
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 7.  A review of standards and statistics used to describe blood glucose monitor performance.

Authors:  Jan S Krouwer; George S Cembrowski
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2010-01-01

8.  Glucose variability is associated with intensive care unit mortality.

Authors:  Jeroen Hermanides; Titia M Vriesendorp; Robert J Bosman; Durk F Zandstra; Joost B Hoekstra; J Hans Devries
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Performance of the Medtronic Sentrino continuous glucose management (CGM) system in the cardiac intensive care unit.

Authors:  Mikhail Kosiborod; Rebecca K Gottlieb; Julie A Sekella; Diane Peterman; Anna Grodzinsky; Paul Kennedy; Michael A Borkon
Journal:  BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care       Date:  2014-07-21

10.  Accuracy, reliability, feasibility and nurse acceptance of a subcutaneous continuous glucose management system in critically ill patients: a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Tobias Wollersheim; Lilian Jo Engelhardt; Jeanne Pachulla; Rudolf Moergeli; Susanne Koch; Claudia Spies; Michael Hiesmayr; Steffen Weber-Carstens
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 6.925

View more
  7 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

Review 2.  Blood Sugar Targets in Surgical Intensive Care—Management and Special Considerations in Patients With Diabetes

Authors:  Johannes Roth; Oliver Sommerfeld; Andreas L Birkenfeld; Christoph Sponholz; Ulrich A Müller; Christian von Loeffelholz
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Novel Glycemic Index Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Predict Poor Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Eun Yeong Ha; Seung Min Chung; Il Rae Park; Yin Young Lee; Eun Young Choi; Jun Sung Moon
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 6.055

4.  Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline.

Authors:  Rodolfo J Galindo; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; Ananda Basu; Suzanne Lohnes; James H Nichols; Elias K Spanakis; Juan Espinoza; Nadine E Palermo; Dessa Garnett Awadjie; Leigh Bak; Bruce Buckingham; Curtiss B Cook; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Tonya Newman; David N O'Neal; Michaela Rickert; David B Sacks; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Amisha Wallia; Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Julia Han; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-09-28

Review 5.  CGM in the Hospital: Is It Ready for Prime Time?

Authors:  Elizabeth O Buschur; Eileen Faulds; Kathleen Dungan
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 5.430

6.  Accuracy of the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring system in critically ill patients: a prospective, multicenter, observational study.

Authors:  Weifeng Huang; Siwan Li; Jingyi Lu; Yun Shen; Yaxin Wang; Yufei Wang; Kaixuan Feng; Xiaoli Huang; Yan Zou; Linjie Hu; Yihan Lu; Jian Zhou; Yingchuan Li
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.925

Review 7.  Diabetes Technology Update: Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital.

Authors:  Guillermo E Umpierrez; David C Klonoff
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2018-06-23       Impact factor: 19.112

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.