OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of five blood glucose meters (BGMs) at various simulated altitudes using a hypobaric chamber. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood glucose levels (ranged from 1.5 to 26.3 mmol/l, according to the reference method) were measured in 18 venous blood samples by each BGM at 200, 1,000, and every 500 m up to 4,000 m in a hypobaric chamber, where temperature and humidity were held constant. RESULTS: Four BGMs underestimated and one overestimated blood glucose concentration while barometric pressure decreased. The average percent error varied in relation to simulated altitude from 0.26 +/- 4.8% (SD) at 200 m to -28.9 +/- 4.5% at 4,000 m (Glucometer 3; P < 0.05), from 28.4 +/- 5.7 to 49.3 +/- 5.9% (Accu-Chek Easy; P < 0.05), from -10.5 +/- 2.6 to 19.8 +/- 4.3% (Tracer, P < 0.05), from -5.5 +/- 2.6 to -11.2 +/- 3.0% (Reflolux; NS), and from 17.8 +/- 4.3 to 14.8 +/- 3.6% (One Touch; NS). The most accurate seemed to be the Reflolux, except for high blood glucose levels at simulated high altitudes. The One Touch II showed a good agreement, whatever the barometric pressure and the range of blood glucose concentrations. The highest underestimation was seen with the Glucometer 3. CONCLUSIONS: Except for the Accu-Chek Easy, low barometric pressure underestimated the BGM results in comparison with measurements taken at simulated low altitudes. The lack of accuracy and consistency of performance > 2,000 m should be known by diabetic patients practicing sports activities, such as trekking or skiing at high altitudes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of five blood glucose meters (BGMs) at various simulated altitudes using a hypobaric chamber. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood glucose levels (ranged from 1.5 to 26.3 mmol/l, according to the reference method) were measured in 18 venous blood samples by each BGM at 200, 1,000, and every 500 m up to 4,000 m in a hypobaric chamber, where temperature and humidity were held constant. RESULTS: Four BGMs underestimated and one overestimated blood glucose concentration while barometric pressure decreased. The average percent error varied in relation to simulated altitude from 0.26 +/- 4.8% (SD) at 200 m to -28.9 +/- 4.5% at 4,000 m (Glucometer 3; P < 0.05), from 28.4 +/- 5.7 to 49.3 +/- 5.9% (Accu-Chek Easy; P < 0.05), from -10.5 +/- 2.6 to 19.8 +/- 4.3% (Tracer, P < 0.05), from -5.5 +/- 2.6 to -11.2 +/- 3.0% (Reflolux; NS), and from 17.8 +/- 4.3 to 14.8 +/- 3.6% (One Touch; NS). The most accurate seemed to be the Reflolux, except for high blood glucose levels at simulated high altitudes. The One Touch II showed a good agreement, whatever the barometric pressure and the range of blood glucose concentrations. The highest underestimation was seen with the Glucometer 3. CONCLUSIONS: Except for the Accu-Chek Easy, low barometric pressure underestimated the BGM results in comparison with measurements taken at simulated low altitudes. The lack of accuracy and consistency of performance > 2,000 m should be known by diabeticpatients practicing sports activities, such as trekking or skiing at high altitudes.
Authors: Pieter de Mol; Hans G Krabbe; Suzanna T de Vries; Marion J Fokkert; Bert D Dikkeschei; Rienk Rienks; Karin M Bilo; Henk J G Bilo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra W Veigne; Eugene Sobngwi; Brice E Nouthe; Joelle Sobngwi-Tambekou; Eric V Balti; Serge Limen; Mesmin Y Dehayem; Vicky Ama; Jean- Louis Nguewa; Maimouna Ndour-Mbaye; Alioune Camara; Naby M Balde; Jean- Claude Mbanya Journal: Cardiovasc J Afr Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.167