OBJECTIVE: We assessed the clinical utility and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) (Dexcom G6) in managing diabetes patients with severe COVID-19 infection following admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We present retrospective analysis of masked rtCGM in 30 patients with severe COVID-19. rtCGM was used during the first 24 hours for comparison with arterial-line point of care (POC) values, where clinicians utilized rtCGM data to adjust insulin therapy in patients if rtCGM values were within 20% of point-of-care (POC) values during the masked period. An investigator-developed survey was administered to assess nursing staff (n = 66) perceptions regarding the use of rtCGM in the ICU. RESULTS: rtCGM data were used to adjust insulin therapy in 30 patients. Discordance between rtCGM and POC glucose values were observed in 11 patients but the differences were not considered clinically significant. Mean sensor glucose decreased from 235.7 ± 42.1 mg/dL (13.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L) to 202.7 ± 37.6 mg/dL (11.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L) with rtCGM management. Improvements in mean sensor glucose were observed in 77% of patients (n = 23) with concomitant reductions in daily POC measurements in 50% of patients (n = 15) with rtCGM management. The majority (63%) of nurses reported that rtCGM was helpful for improving care for patients with diabetes patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 49% indicated that rtCGM reduced their use of personal protective equipment (PPE). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a strong rationale to increase clinician awareness for the adoption and implementation of rtCGM systems in the ICU. Additional studies are needed to further understand the utility of rtCGM in critically ill patients and other clinical care settings.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the clinical utility and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) (Dexcom G6) in managing diabetes patients with severe COVID-19 infection following admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We present retrospective analysis of masked rtCGM in 30 patients with severe COVID-19. rtCGM was used during the first 24 hours for comparison with arterial-line point of care (POC) values, where clinicians utilized rtCGM data to adjust insulin therapy in patients if rtCGM values were within 20% of point-of-care (POC) values during the masked period. An investigator-developed survey was administered to assess nursing staff (n = 66) perceptions regarding the use of rtCGM in the ICU. RESULTS: rtCGM data were used to adjust insulin therapy in 30 patients. Discordance between rtCGM and POC glucose values were observed in 11 patients but the differences were not considered clinically significant. Mean sensor glucose decreased from 235.7 ± 42.1 mg/dL (13.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L) to 202.7 ± 37.6 mg/dL (11.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L) with rtCGM management. Improvements in mean sensor glucose were observed in 77% of patients (n = 23) with concomitant reductions in daily POC measurements in 50% of patients (n = 15) with rtCGM management. The majority (63%) of nurses reported that rtCGM was helpful for improving care for patients with diabetes patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 49% indicated that rtCGM reduced their use of personal protective equipment (PPE). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a strong rationale to increase clinician awareness for the adoption and implementation of rtCGM systems in the ICU. Additional studies are needed to further understand the utility of rtCGM in critically ill patients and other clinical care settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; cardiac arrest; hyperglycemia; rtCGM; type 2 diabetes
Authors: Stephen Clement; Susan S Braithwaite; Michelle F Magee; Andrew Ahmann; Elizabeth P Smith; Rebecca G Schafer; Irl B Hirsch; Irl B Hirsh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Roy W Beck; Tonya D Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Stacie Haller; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; David Price; Stephen Aronoff; Ronnie Aronson; Elena Toschi; Craig Kollman; Richard Bergenstal Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Marcus Lind; William Polonsky; Irl B Hirsch; Tim Heise; Jan Bolinder; Sofia Dahlqvist; Erik Schwarz; Arndís Finna Ólafsdóttir; Anders Frid; Hans Wedel; Elsa Ahlén; Thomas Nyström; Jarl Hellman Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pavan K Bhatraju; Bijan J Ghassemieh; Michelle Nichols; Richard Kim; Keith R Jerome; Arun K Nalla; Alexander L Greninger; Sudhakar Pipavath; Mark M Wurfel; Laura Evans; Patricia A Kritek; T Eoin West; Andrew Luks; Anthony Gerbino; Chris R Dale; Jason D Goldman; Shane O'Mahony; Carmen Mikacenic Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Nicole Y Xu; Kevin T Nguyen; Ashley Y DuBord; David C Klonoff; Julian M Goldman; Shahid N Shah; Elias K Spanakis; Charisse Madlock-Brown; Siavash Sarlati; Azhar Rafiq; Axel Wirth; David Kerr; Raman Khanna; Scott Weinstein; Juan Espinoza Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2022-05-09
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