Prediction of glucose concentration in post-cardiothoracic surgery patients using continuous glucose monitoring

Inpatient Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Glycemic Outcomes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is commonly used in the outpatient setting to improve diabetes management. CGM can provide real-time glucose trends, detecting hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia before the onset of clinical symptoms. In 2011, at the time the Endocrine Society CGM guidelines were published, the society did not recommend inpatient CGM as its efficacy and safety were unknown. While many studies have subsequently evaluated inpatient CGM accuracy and reliability, glycemic outcome studies have not been widely published. In the non-ICU setting, investigational CGM studies have commonly blinded providers and patients to glucose data. Retrospective review of the glucose data reflects increased hypoglycemia detection with CGM. In the ICU setting, data are inconsistent whether CGM can improve glycemic outcomes. Studies have not focused on hospitalized patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the population most likely to benefit from inpatient CGM. This article reviews inpatient CGM glycemic outcomes in the non-ICU and ICU setting.

Randomized Evaluation of Glycemic Control in the Medical Intensive Care Unit Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (REGIMEN Trial)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Hyperglycemia occurs commonly in patients admitted to medical intensive care units (MICUs). Whether real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control and variability and reduces hypoglycemia in severely ill MICU patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score of ≥20 has not been studied.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Thirty-five patients (66 ± 10 years of age; APACHE-II score, 28 ± 6) were randomly assigned to RT-CGM (n = 16) using the GlucoDay(®)S (A. Menarini Diagnostics, Florence, Italy) device or to blinded CGM. Insulin was infused using a modified Yale protocol targeting a blood glucose level between 80 and 120 mg/dL. Outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80-110 mg/dL) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dL), glycemic variability (SD, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, and mean of daily differences), and CGM accuracy (error grid analyses, Bland-Altman bias plot, and mean absolute relative deviation).

RESULTS

During 96 h of monitoring, glycemia reached target (80-110 mg/dL) in 37 ± 15%, was between 70 and 180 mg/dL in 91 ± 10%, and <60 mg/dL in 2 ± 2% of the time. In the RT-CGM group glycemia averaged 119 ± 17 mg/dL versus 122 ± 11 mg/dL in the control group. Parameters of glucose variability and percentages of time at target glycemia and in hypoglycemia were similar between groups. GlucoDayS values and arterial glycemia correlated well, with 98.6% of data falling in Zones A and B of the error grid analysis. Mean absolute relative devation was 11.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

RT-CGM did not ameliorate glucose control or variability; neither did it reduce the number of hypoglycemic events, but our insulin infusion protocol led to overall good glucose control without a significant hypoglycemia risk, making further improvement difficult.

Microdialysis--a versatile technology to perform metabolic monitoring in diabetes and critically ill patients

Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring has been tested in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Since in critically ill patients vascular access is granted vascular microdialysis may be preferential. To test this hypothesis comparative accuracy data for microdialysis applied for peripheral venous and subcutaneous glucose monitoring was obtained in experiments in T1D patients. Twelve T1D patients were investigated for up to 30 h. Extracorporeal vascular (MDv) and subcutaneous microdialysis (MDs) was performed. Microdialysis samples were collected in 15-60 min intervals, analyzed for glucose and calibrated to reference. MDv and MDs glucose levels were compared against reference. Median absolute relative difference was 14.0 (5.0; 28.0)% (MDv) and 9.2 (4.4; 18.4)% (MDs). Clarke Error Grid analysis showed that 100% (MDv) and 98.8% (MDv) were within zones A and B. Extracorporeal vascular and standard subcutaneous microdialysis indicated similar performance in T1D. We suggest microdialysis as a versatile technology for metabolite monitoring in subcutaneous tissue and whole blood.