Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Skin Problems Due to Treatment with Technology Are Associated with Increased Disease Burden Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. DIWHY – Motivations, barriers and retention factors of DIY artificial pancreas users in real world use

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKonferenceabstrakt i tidsskriftForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Background: Integrated hormone delivery and glucose sensing is warranted, but system performance could be challenged by glucose sensor susceptibility to pharmacological interferences. The aim of this study was to compare sensor accuracy (Medtronic Enlite 2 ®) after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of low-dose glucagon near to versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGM glucagon and CGM control) placed on each side of the abdomen before, during, and after two overnight 14-h in-clinic visits. During each visit, a s.c. 100 μg glucagon injection was administered 2 cm next to the CGM glucagon followed by another injection of 100 μg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h in-clinic Yellow Spring Instrument (YSI) measurements and 3-day self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Results: Using YSI as comparator, no difference in the median absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGM glucagon (15.7%) and CGM control (13.4%) was found ( P  = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGM glucagon (11.0%) and CGM control (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator ( P  = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGM glucagon and CGM control using YSI (93.9% vs. 91.1%, P  = 0.250) and SMBG (97.3% vs. 95.0%, P  = 0.375) as reference measurement. The precision absolute relative deviation between sensors was 13.7%. Conclusions: Sensor accuracy was not significantly affected by administration of s.c. glucagon near to sensor site.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Vol/bind22
Udgave nummer2
ISSN1520-9156
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 22 jan. 2020

ID: 58035804