Assessment of different techniques for subcutaneous glucose monitoring in Type 1 diabetic patients during 'real-life' glucose excursions

Diabet. Med. 27, 332–338 (2010) Aims  To compare the accuracy of two marketed subcutaneous glucose monitoring devices (Guardian RT, GRT; GlucoDay S, GDS) and standard microdialysis (CMA60; MD) in Type 1 diabetic patients. Methods  Seven male Type diabetic patients were investigated over a period of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetic medicine 2010-03, Vol.27 (3), p.332-338
Hauptverfasser: Mader, J. K., Weinhandl, H., Köhler, G., Plank, J., Bock, G., Korsatko, S., Ratzer, M., Ikeoka, D., Köhler, H., Pieber, T. R., Ellmerer, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Diabet. Med. 27, 332–338 (2010) Aims  To compare the accuracy of two marketed subcutaneous glucose monitoring devices (Guardian RT, GRT; GlucoDay S, GDS) and standard microdialysis (CMA60; MD) in Type 1 diabetic patients. Methods  Seven male Type diabetic patients were investigated over a period of 26 h simulating real‐life meal glucose excursions. Catheters of the three systems were inserted into subcutaneous adipose tissue of the abdominal region. For MD, interstitial fluid was sampled at 30‐ to 60‐min intervals for offline glucose determination. Reference samples were taken at 15‐ to 60‐min intervals. All three systems were prospectively calibrated to reference. Median differences, median absolute relative differences (MARD), median absolute differences (MAD), Bland–Altman plot and Clark Error Grid were used to determine accuracy. Results  Bland–Altman analysis indicated a mean glucose difference (2 standard deviations) between reference and interstitial glucose of −10.5 (41.8) % for GRT, 20.2 (55.9) % for GDS and 6.5 (35.2) % for MD, respectively. Overall MAD (interquartile range) was 1.07 (0.39; 2.04) mmol/l for GRT, 1.59 (0.54; 3.08) mmol/l for GDS and 0.76 (0.26; 1.58) mmol/l for MD. Overall MARD was 15.0 (5.6; 23.4) % (GRT), 19.7 (6.1; 37.6) % (GDS) and 8.7 (4.1; 18.3) % (MD), respectively. Total sensor failure occurred in two subjects using GRT and one subject using GDS. Conclusions  The three investigated technologies had comparable performance. Whereas GRT underestimated actual blood glucose, GDS and MD overestimated blood glucose. Considerable deviations during daily life meal glucose excursions from reference glucose were observed for all three investigated technologies. Present technologies may require further improvement until individual data can lead to direct and automated generation of therapeutic advice in diabetes management.
ISSN:0742-3071
1464-5491
DOI:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02924.x