973-P: Wearing a Long-Term Implanted Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System vs. Conventional CGM in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes—The Physical Burden

Aim: To compare device tolerance & participant’s subjective experience wearing a surgically implanted long term glucose sensor versus conventional CGM in adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Method: A prototype CGM (Eclipse 3 sensor, GlySens, San Diego, CA) with masked glucose data transmitted to a stud...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetes (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2023-06, Vol.72 (Supplement_1), p.1
Hauptverfasser: ROBINSON, LESLEY, OBEYESEKERE, VARUNI R., JONES, HANNAH, KONG, YEE W., YI YUAN, CHENG, BERTSCH, KRISTA, ROUTH, TIMOTHY L., SIMS, CATRIONA M., BUTLER, ANTHONY, TAN, JASON, MARTHA, SANDRA L., O'NEAL, DAVID N.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim: To compare device tolerance & participant’s subjective experience wearing a surgically implanted long term glucose sensor versus conventional CGM in adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Method: A prototype CGM (Eclipse 3 sensor, GlySens, San Diego, CA) with masked glucose data transmitted to a study iPhone was surgically inserted superficial to the rectus sheath in 8 Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (4 Female; Mean [SD] Age 56 [7]Y; BMI 25[3]). One daily fingerstick glucose calibration was required. Participants simultaneously wore a conventional TGA approved multi-Day sensor that also transmitted unblinded glucose information to the Study iPhone. The two systems were compared using a standardized 5-point Leichardt scale questionnaire completed by participants at day 1, 7 and 14 post-implantation and monthly thereafter for the duration of study participation. Results: The investigation and comparator sensors were worn 100% and 98% percent of the time respectively over the study duration. Figure 1 summarizes the participant experience. Conclusions: Over time there was a general trend by all participants to favour the GlySens sensor and experience over the comparator CGM. Figure 1: Participant experience over 10 months of sensor implantation.
ISSN:0012-1797
1939-327X
DOI:10.2337/db23-973-P