Use of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in High Risk Hospitalized Non-critically ill Patients with Diabetes after Cardiac Surgery and during their Transition of Care from the Intensive Care Unit during Covid-19-A Pilot Study

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Using the Dexcom G6 in Cardiac Surgery During the Postoperative Period

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac surgery is associated with hyperglycemia, which in turn is associated with adverse postsurgical outcomes such as wound infections, acute renal failure, and mortality. This pilot study seeks to determine if Dexcom G6Pro continuous glucose monitor (Dexcom G6Pro CGM) is accurate during the postoperative cardiac surgery period when fluid shifts, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and vasoactive medications are frequently encountered, compared to standard glucose monitoring techniques.

METHODS

This study received institutional review board approval. In this prospective study, correlation between clinical and Dexcom glucose readings was evaluated. Clinical glucose (blood gas, metabolic panel, and point of care) data set included 1428 readings from 29 patients, while the Dexcom G6Pro CGM data included 45 645 data points following placement to upper arm. Additionally, average clinical measurements of day and overnight temperatures and hemodynamics were evaluated. Clinical and Dexcom data were restricted to being at least 1 hour after prior clinical reading Matching Dexcom G6Pro CGM data were required within 5 minutes of clinical measure. Data included only if taken at least 2 hours after Dexcom G6Pro CGM insertion (warm-up time) and analyzed only following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Finally, a data set excluding the first 24 hours after ICU admission was created to explore stability of the device. Patients remained on Dexcom G6Pro CGM until discharge or 10 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

The population was 71% male, 14% with known diabetes; 66% required intravenous insulin infusion. The Clarke error grid plot of all measures post-ICU admission showed 53.5% in zone A, 45.9% in zone B, and 0.6% (n = 5) in zones D or E. The restricted dataset that excluded the first 24 hours post-ICU admission showed 55.9% in zone A, 43.9% in zone B, and 0.2% in zone D. Mean absolute relative difference between clinical and Dexcom G6Pro CGM measures was 20.6% and 21.6% in the entire post-ICU admission data set, and the data set excluding the first 24 hours after ICU admission, respectively. In the subanalysis of the 12 patients who did not have more than a 5-minute tap in the operating room, a consensus error grid, demonstrated that after ICU admission, percentage in zone A was 53.9%, zone B 45.4%, and zone C 0.7%. Similar percentages were obtained removing the first 24 hours post-ICU admission. These numbers are very similar to the entire cohort. A consensus error grid created post-ICU admission demonstrated: (zone A) 54%, (zone B) 45%, (zone C) 0.9%, and the following for the dataset created excluding the first 24 hours: (zone A) 56%, (zone B) 44%, (zone C) 0.4%, which demonstrated very close agreement with the original Clarke error grid. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 100% of Dexcom G6Pro CGM and clinical data matching points fell within areas considered as giving clinically correct decisions (zone A) and clinically uncritical decisions (zone B). However, the relatively high mean absolute relative difference precludes its use for both monitoring and treatment in the clinical context. As technology evolves, interstitial glucose monitoring may become an important tool to limit iatrogenic anemia and mitigate glycemic fluctuations.

A Consensus Statement for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics for Inpatient Clinical Trials

Diabetes Technology Society organized an expert consensus panel to develop metrics for research in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in a hospital setting. The experts met virtually in small groups both before and after an April 13, 2023 virtual meeting of the entire panel. The goal of the panel was to develop consensus definitions in anticipation of greater use of CGMs in hospital settings in the future. Establishment of consensus definitions of inpatient analytical metrics will be easier to compare outcomes between studies. Panelists defined terms related to 10 dimensions of measurements related to the use of CGMs including (1) hospital hypoglycemia, (2) hospital hyperglycemia, (3) hospital time in range, (4) hospital glycemic variability, (5) hospital glycemia risk index, (6) accuracy of CGM devices and reference methods for CGMs in the hospital, (7) meaningful time blocks for hospital glycemic goals, (8) hospital CGM data sufficiency, (9) using CGM data for insulin dosing, and (10) miscellaneous factors. The panelists voted on 51 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 51 recommendations were classified as either strong (43) or mild (8). Additional research is needed on CGM performance in the hospital. This consensus report is intended to support that type of research intended to improve outcomes for hospitalized people with diabetes.

Accuracy and Potential Interferences of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors in the Hospital

For years, the standard of care for monitoring dysglycemia in hospitalized patients was capillary blood glucose (CBG) testing with point-of-care glucose meters. Recently, there has been a revolution in novel factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Newer CGMs are smaller and less expensive, have improved accuracy and longer wear time, and do not require fingerstick CBG for calibration, resulting in increased utilization in ambulatory settings. Consequently, hospitals have noticed increased usability of CGMs among hospitalized patients and expect a progressive continued increase. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, with several pilot implementation projects using CGM in the intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit settings, further boosting the evidence in this area. Hence, recent guidelines have provided recommendations for the use of CGM in specific hospital scenarios and highlighted the potential of CGM to overcome CBG limitations for glucose monitoring in the inpatient setting. In this review, we provide the following: 1) an up-to-date review of the accuracy of the newer CGMs in hospitalized patients, 2) a discussion of standards for CGM accuracy metrics, 3) a contemporary overview of potential interferences that may cause inaccuracies or poor CGM performance, and 4) required steps for full regulatory approval of CGMs in the hospital and future research steps to advance the field forward.

Continuous glucose monitoring for inpatient diabetes management: an update on current evidence and practice

Over the last few years, several exciting changes in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology have expanded its use and made CGM the standard of care for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using insulin therapy. Consequently, hospitals started to notice increased use of these devices in their hospitalized patients. Furthermore during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, and several hospitals started to implement CGM protocols in their daily practice. Subsequently, a plethora of studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of CGM use in the hospital, leading to clinical practice guideline recommendations. Several studies have also suggested that CGM has the potential to become the standard of care for some hospitalized patients, overcoming the limitations of current capillary glucose testing. Albeit, there is a need for more studies and particularly regulatory approval. In this review, we provide a historical overview of the evolution of glycemic monitoring in the hospital and review the current evidence, implementation protocols, and guidance for the use of CGM in hospitalized patients.

[It's a new world: Improvement of diabetes therapy through digital and technical innovations]

Medical progress is increasingly characterized by digital and technical solutions that improve and facilitate treatment of our patients. Especially diabetes therapy is an ideal field for digital and technical solutions. The complexity of insulin therapy with the need to take multiple variables into account is a brilliant example for the use of digital support processes. This article gives an overview of the current state of telemedicine during corona pandemic and diabetes Apps to improve mental health and self support in people with diabetes as well as to simplify documentation. In the field of technical solutions at first continuous glucose monitoring and smart pen technology will be presented with their potential to increase time in range, reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia and improve glycemic management. As next topic automated insulin delivery as current gold standard and possibilities to further improve glycemic control in future. Last wearables in the diabetes field to improve diabetes therapy as well as the management of diabetes complications. All these aspects show the importance of technical and digital supported therapies for treatment and glycemic management in people with diabetes in Germany.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis or Pericarditis

INTRODUCTION

There have been reports of potential negative cardiovascular effects from the COVID-19 vaccine, such as myocarditis or pericarditis. This study sought to ascertain the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination by conducting an extensive meta-analysis of published cases.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in 7 online databases by March 31, 2022. Heterogeneity was tested by I² index. RR and 95% CI were pooled through either random-effect or fixed-effect models. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies with 58,620,611 subjects were included. COVID-19 vaccination correlated with an increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis (RR=2.04; 95% CI=1.33, 3.14). In addition, an increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis in people who received the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with that in those who received only the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine was also found (RR=4.06; 95% CI=2.08, 7.92). An increased incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis was noted predominantly in those who received BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines (RR=2.19; 95% CI=1.46, 3.29 and RR=4.15; 95% CI=1.87, 9.22, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Study results indicate that a higher incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis was found after COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, the risk of developing myocarditis or pericarditis was greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Nevertheless, the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 vaccine recipients are still significantly lower than the health risks observed in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, the benefits and harms must be carefully assessed to determine the best management option for patients who are in the high-risk group of myocarditis or pericarditis.

[Position statement: surgery and diabetes mellitus (Update 2023)]

This position statement reflects the perspective of the Austrian Diabetes Association concerning the perioperative management of people with diabetes mellitus based on the available scientific evidence. The paper covers necessary preoperative examinations from an internal/diabetological point of view as well as the perioperative metabolic control by means of oral antihyperglycemic and/or insulin therapy.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Summary of Guidelines From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care

Increasing numbers of people, particularly with type 1 diabetes (T1D), are using wearable technologies. That is, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine both these elements. Given over a quarter of all people admitted to hospital have diabetes, there is a need for clinical guidelines for when people using them are admitted to hospital. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) provide a scoping review and summary of guidelines on the use of diabetes technology in people with diabetes admitted to hospital.JBDS-IP advocates enabling people who can self-manage and use their own diabetes technology to continue doing so as they would do out of hospital. Whilst people with diabetes are recommended to achieve a target of 70% time within range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]), this can be very difficult to achieve whilst unwell. We therefore recommend targeting hypoglycemia prevention as a priority, keeping time below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) at < 1%, being aware of looming hypoglycemia if glucose is between 4.0 and 5.9 mmol/L (72-106 mg/dL), and consider intervening, particularly if there is a downward CGM trend arrow.Health care organizations need clear local policies and guidance to support individuals using diabetes technologies, and ensure the relevant workforce is capable and skilled enough to ensure their safe use within the hospital setting. The current set of guidelines is divided into two parts. Part 1, which follows below, outlines the guidance for use of CGM in hospital. The second part outlines guidance for use of CSII and hybrid closed-loop in hospital.

The Devil Is in the Details: Use, Limitations, and Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Inpatient Setting

Until recently, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems were reserved for use in the outpatient setting or for investigational purposes in hospitalized patients. However, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, use of CGM in the inpatient setting has grown rapidly. This review outlines important details related to the accuracy, limitations, and implementation of, as well as necessary staff education for, inpatient CGM use and offers a glimpse into the future of CGM in the inpatient setting.