Dataset Information

Accuracy of a Fourth-Generation Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Sensor.

ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the accuracy and performance of a fourth-generation subcutaneous glucose sensor (Guardian™ Sensor 3) in the abdomen and arm.Eighty-eight subjects (14-75 years of age, mean?±?standard deviation [SD] of 42.0?±?19.1 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes participated in the study. Subjects wore two sensors in the abdomen that were paired with either a MiniMed™ 640G insulin pump, or an iPhone® or iPod® touch® running a glucose monitoring mobile application (Guardian Connect system) and a third sensor in the arm, which was connected to a glucose sensor recorder (GSR). Subjects were also asked to undergo in-clinic visits of 12-14?h on study days 1, 3, and 7 for frequent blood glucose sample testing using a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) reference.The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD?±?SD) between abdomen sensor glucose (SG) and YSI reference values was 9.6%?±?9.0% and 9.4%?±?9.8% for the MiniMed 640G insulin pump and Guardian Connect system, respectively; and 8.7%?±?8.0% between arm SG and YSI reference values. The percentage of SG values within 20% agreement of the YSI reference value (for YSI >80?mg/dL) was 90.7% with the MiniMed 640G insulin pump, 91.8% with the Guardian Connect system, and 93.1% for GSR-connected arm sensors. Mean functional sensor life, when calibrating 3-4 times/day, was 145.9?±?39.3?h for sensors paired with the MiniMed 640G insulin pump, 146.1?±?41.6?h for sensors paired with the Guardian Connect system, and 147.6?±?40.4?h for sensors connected to the GSR. Responses to survey questions regarding sensor comfort and ease of use were favorable.The Guardian Sensor 3 glucose sensor, whether located in abdomen or the arm, provided accurate glucose readings when compared with the YSI reference and demonstrated functional life commensurate with the intended 7-day use. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02246582.

SUBMITTER: Christiansen MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5567873 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of a Fourth-Generation Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Sensor.

Christiansen Mark P MP Garg Satish K SK Brazg Ronald R Bode Bruce W BW Bailey Timothy S TS Slover Robert H RH Sullivan Ashley A Huang Suiying S Shin John J Lee Scott W SW Kaufman Francine R FR

Diabetes technology & therapeutics 20170712 8

<h4>Background</h4>This study evaluated the accuracy and performance of a fourth-generation subcutaneous glucose sensor (Guardian<sup>™</sup> Sensor 3) in the abdomen and arm.<h4>Methods</h4>Eighty-eight subjects (14-75 years of age, mean ± standard deviation [SD] of 42.0 ± 19.1 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes participated in the study. Subjects wore two sensors in the abdomen that were paired with either a MiniMed<sup>™</sup> 640G insulin pump, or an iPhone<sup>®</sup> or iPod<sup>®</sup> ...[more]

PMID: 28700272

Similar Datasets

Project description:Erratic blood glucose levels can be a cause and consequence of delayed gastric emptying in patients with diabetes. It is unknown if better glycemic control increases risks of hypoglycemia or improves hemoglobin A1c levels and gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetic gastroparesis. This study investigated the safety and potential efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in poorly controlled diabetes with gastroparesis. Forty-five type 1 or 2 patients with diabetes and gastroparesis and hemoglobin A1c >8% from the NIDDK Gastroparesis Consortium enrolled in a 24 week open-label pilot prospective study of CSII plus CGM. The primary safety outcome was combined numbers of mild, moderate, and severe hypoglycemic events at screening and 24 weeks treatment. Secondary outcomes included glycemic excursions on CGM, hemoglobin A1c, gastroparesis symptoms, quality-of-life, and liquid meal tolerance. Combined mild, moderate, and severe hypoglycemic events occurred similarly during the screening/run-in (1.9/week) versus treatment (2.2/week) phases with a relative risk of 1.18 (95% CI 0.85-1.64, P = 0.33). CGM time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) decreased from 3.9% to 1.8% (P<0.0001), time in euglycemia (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 44.0% to 52.0% (P = 0.02), time in severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL) decreased from 14.2% to 7.0% (P = 0.005), and hemoglobin A1c decreased from 9.4±1.4% to 8.3±1.3% (P = 0.001) on CSII plus CGM. Symptom scores decreased from 29.3±7.1 to 21.9±10.2 with lower nausea/vomiting, fullness/early satiety, and bloating/distention scores (P?0.001). Quality-of-life scores improved from 2.4±1.1 to 3.1±1.1 (P<0.0001) and volumes of liquid nutrient meals tolerated increased from 420±258 to 487±312 mL (P = 0.05) at 24 weeks. In conclusion, CSII plus CGM appeared to be safe with minimal risks of hypoglycemic events and associated improvements in glycemic control, gastroparesis symptoms, quality-of-life, and meal tolerance in patients with poorly controlled diabetes and gastroparesis. This study supports the safety, feasibility, and potential benefits of improving glycemic control in diabetic gastroparesis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has not yet been implemented in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate reliability, feasibility, nurse acceptance and accuracy of the Medtronic Sentrino(®) CGM system in critically ill patients. METHODS:Sensors were inserted into the subcutaneous tissue of the patient's thigh, quantifying interstitial glucose concentration for up to 72 h per sensor. Reliability and feasibility analysis included frequency of data display, data gaps and reasons for sensor removal. We surveyed nurse acceptance in a questionnaire. For the accuracy analysis, we compared sensor values to glucose values obtained via blood gas analysis. Potential benefits of CGM were investigated in intra-individual analyses of factors, such as glycemic variability or time in target range achieved with CGM compared to that achieved with intermittent glucose monitoring. RESULTS:The device generated 68,655 real-time values from 31 sensors in 20 critically ill patients. 532 comparative blood glucose values were collected. Data were displayed during 32.5 h [16.0/62.4] per sensor, which is 45.1 % of the expected time of 72 h and 84.8 % of 37.9 h actual monitoring time. 21 out of 31 sensors were removed prematurely. 79.1 % of the nursing staff rated the device as not beneficial; the response rate was one-third. Mean absolute relative difference was 15.3 % (CI 13.5-17.0 %). Clarke error grid: 76.9 % zone A, 21.6 % zone B, 0.2 % zone C, 0.9 % zone D, 0.4 % zone E. Bland-Altman plot: mean bias +0.53 mg/dl, limits of agreement +64.6 and -63.5 mg/dl. Accuracy deteriorated during elevated glycemic variability and in the hyperglycemic range. There was no reduction in dysglycemic events during CGM compared to 72 h before and after CGM. If CGM was measuring accurately, it identified more hyperglycemic events when compared to intermittent measurements. This study was not designed to evaluate potential benefits of CGM on glucose control. CONCLUSIONS:The subcutaneous CGM system did not perform with satisfactory accuracy, feasibility, or nursing acceptance when evaluated in 20 medical-surgical ICU patients. Low point accuracy and prolonged data gaps significantly limited the potential clinical usefulness of the CGM trend data. Accurate continuous data display, with a MARD < 14 %, showed potential benefits in a subgroup of our patients. Trial registration NCT02296372; Ethic vote Charité EA2/095/14.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of a Fourth-Generation Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Sensor.

Publications

Accuracy of a Fourth-Generation Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Sensor.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure