Archana R Sadhu1, Ivan Alexander Serrano2, Jiaqiong Xu3, Tariq Nisar4, Jessica Lucier2, Anjani R Pandya2, Bhargavi Patham1. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Houston Methodist, Weill Cornell Medical College, Texas A&M Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has emerged as an alternative for inpatient point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) monitoring. We performed a feasibility pilot study using CGM in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of glucose monitoring in critically ill patients with COVID-19 on insulin therapy using Medtronic Guardian Connect and Dexcom G6 CGM systems. Primary outcomes were feasibility and accuracy for trending POC-BG. Secondary outcomes included reliability and nurse acceptance. Sensor glucose (SG) was used for trends between POC-BG with nursing guidance to reduce POC-BG frequency from one to two hours to four hours when the SG was in the target range. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Clarke error grids analysis (EGA), and Bland-Altman (B&A) plots were calculated for accuracy of paired SG and POC-BG measurements. RESULTS: CGM devices were placed on 11 patients: Medtronic (n = 6) and Dexcom G6 (n = 5). Both systems were feasible and reliable with good nurse acceptance. To determine accuracy, 437 paired SG and POC-BG readings were analyzed. For Medtronic, the MARD was 13.1% with 100% of readings in zones A and B on Clarke EGA. For Dexcom, MARD was 11.1% with 98% of readings in zones A and B. B&A plots had a mean bias of -17.76 mg/dL (Medtronic) and -1.94 mg/dL (Dexcom), with wide 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CGM is feasible in critically ill patients and has acceptable accuracy to identify trends and guide intermittent blood glucose monitoring with insulin therapy.
BACKGROUND: Amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has emerged as an alternative for inpatient point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) monitoring. We performed a feasibility pilot study using CGM in critically illpatients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of glucose monitoring in critically illpatients with COVID-19 on insulin therapy using Medtronic Guardian Connect and Dexcom G6 CGM systems. Primary outcomes were feasibility and accuracy for trending POC-BG. Secondary outcomes included reliability and nurse acceptance. Sensor glucose (SG) was used for trends between POC-BG with nursing guidance to reduce POC-BG frequency from one to two hours to four hours when the SG was in the target range. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Clarke error grids analysis (EGA), and Bland-Altman (B&A) plots were calculated for accuracy of paired SG and POC-BG measurements. RESULTS: CGM devices were placed on 11 patients: Medtronic (n = 6) and Dexcom G6 (n = 5). Both systems were feasible and reliable with good nurse acceptance. To determine accuracy, 437 paired SG and POC-BG readings were analyzed. For Medtronic, the MARD was 13.1% with 100% of readings in zones A and B on Clarke EGA. For Dexcom, MARD was 11.1% with 98% of readings in zones A and B. B&A plots had a mean bias of -17.76 mg/dL (Medtronic) and -1.94 mg/dL (Dexcom), with wide 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CGM is feasible in critically illpatients and has acceptable accuracy to identify trends and guide intermittent blood glucose monitoring with insulin therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; continuous glucose monitoring; critically ill; hospital; inpatient; intensive care unit
Authors: Amisha Wallia; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; David C Klonoff; Daniel J Rubin; Sherita Hill Golden; Curtiss B Cook; Bithika Thompson Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-04-21
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
Authors: James S Krinsley; J Geoffrey Chase; Jan Gunst; Johan Martensson; Marcus J Schultz; Fabio S Taccone; Jan Wernerman; Julien Bohe; Christophe De Block; Thomas Desaive; Pierre Kalfon; Jean-Charles Preiser Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Simon Finfer; Jan Wernerman; Jean-Charles Preiser; Tony Cass; Thomas Desaive; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey I Joseph; Mikhail Kosiborod; James Krinsley; Iain Mackenzie; Dieter Mesotten; Marcus J Schultz; Mitchell G Scott; Robbert Slingerland; Greet Van den Berghe; Tom Van Herpe Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Jingtong Huang; Andrea M Yeung; Kevin T Nguyen; Nicole Y Xu; Jean-Charles Preiser; Robert J Rushakoff; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Amisha Wallia; Andjela T Drincic; Roma Gianchandani; M Cecilia Lansang; Umesh Masharani; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Francisco J Pasquel; Signe Schmidt; Viral N Shah; Elias K Spanakis; Andreas Stuhr; Gerlies M Treiber; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2022-07-29
Authors: Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Andreas Thomas; Mark A Arnold; Beatrice N Vetter; Lutz Heinemann; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-06-13
Authors: Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; B Wayne Bequette; Jennifer K Raymond; Gerard Coté; Jennifer L Sherr; Jessica Castle; John Pickup; Yarmela Pavlovic; Juan Espinoza; Laurel H Messer; Tim Heise; Carlos E Mendez; Sarah Kim; Barry H Ginsberg; Umesh Masharani; Rodolfo J Galindo; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-07