1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Interruption of CGM: Frequency and Adverse Consequences

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Removal of diabetes devices, including insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), is a common practice due to hospital policies, interference with imaging studies, medications, and surgical interventions. Furthermore, these devices are inherently prone to malfunction, adhesive failure, and issues with insertion that can lead to a reduction in wear time. Prescription and dispensing practices provide an exact number of sensors per month without redundancy to account for the realities of daily CGM use.

          Methods:

          A RedCap survey was completed by adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D or T2D) who utilize CGM followed in the Diabetes Center at Washington University in St Louis.

          Results:

          Of 384 surveys sent, 99 were completed. Participants had a mean age of 54 years, T1D 69%, female 70%, White 96%, non-Hispanic 96%, and a mean duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) 28 years. Of the cohort, 100% used CGM (80.2% Dexcom, 13.5% Freestyle Libre, 6.3% Medtronic), 61% insulin pump, and 41% Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems. CGM-related disruption events included device malfunction (in 85.4% of participants), insertion problems (63.5%), and falling off (61.4%). Medical care–related disruption occurred most frequently in the setting of imaging (41.7%), followed by surgery/procedures (11.7%) and hospitalization (4.4%). Adverse glycemic events attributed to CGM disruption, including hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, occurred ≥4 times in 36.5% and 12.4% of the cohort, respectively.

          Conclusions:

          Disruption in CGM use is common. Lack of redundancy of CGM supplies contributes to care disruption and adverse glycemic events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial.

            Previous clinical trials showing the benefit of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of type 1 diabetes predominantly have included adults using insulin pumps, even though the majority of adults with type 1 diabetes administer insulin by injection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

              Abstract Background: The safety and effectiveness of the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system that automatically increases, decreases, and suspends insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring were investigated. Methods: Adolescents (n = 30, ages 14–21 years) and adults (n = 94, ages 22–75 years) with type 1 diabetes participated in a multicenter (nine sites in the United States, one site in Israel) pivotal trial. The Medtronic MiniMed® 670G system was used during a 2-week run-in phase without HCL control, or Auto Mode, enabled (Manual Mode) and, thereafter, with Auto Mode enabled during a 3-month study phase. A supervised hotel stay (6 days/5 nights) that included a 24-h frequent blood sample testing with a reference measurement (i-STAT) occurred during the study phase. Results: Adolescents (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 16.5 ± 2.29 years of age and 7.7 ± 4.15 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 75.8% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.0%–88.4%) of the time (2977 patient-days). Adults (mean ± SD 44.6 ± 12.79 years of age and 26.4 ± 12.43 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 88.0% (IQR 77.6%–92.7%) of the time (9412 patient-days). From baseline run-in to the end of study phase, adolescent and adult HbA1c levels decreased from 7.7% ± 0.8% to 7.1% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001) and from 7.3% ± 0.9% to 6.8% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), respectively. The proportion of overall in-target (71–180 mg/dL) sensor glucose (SG) values increased from 60.4% ± 10.9% to 67.2% ± 8.2% (P < 0.001) in adolescents and from 68.8% ± 11.9% to 73.8% ± 8.4% (P < 0.001) in adults. During the hotel stay, the proportion of in-target i-STAT® blood glucose values was 67.4% ± 27.7% compared to SG values of 72.0% ± 11.6% for adolescents and 74.2% ± 17.5% compared to 76.9% ± 8.3% for adults. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events in either cohort. Conclusions: HCL therapy was safe during in-home use by adolescents and adults and the study phase demonstrated increased time in target, and reductions in HbA1c, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, compared to baseline. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02463097.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
                J Diabetes Sci Technol
                SAGE Publications
                1932-2968
                1932-2968
                February 23 2023
                : 193229682311565
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism & Lipid Research, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
                [2 ]Northwestern Medicine Regional Medical Group, Chicago, IL, USA
                Article
                10.1177/19322968231156572
                252ceaa8-1da7-4359-b8af-b0a45baa981a
                © 2023

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article