The effect of congestive heart failure on sensor accuracy among hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Assessment and Management of Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease

In developed countries, diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and accounts for 50% of incidence of end stage kidney disease. Despite declining prevalence of micro- and macrovascular complications, there are rising trends in renal replacement therapy in diabetes. Optimal glycemic control may reduce risk of progression of CKD and related death. However, assessing glycemic control in patients with advanced CKD and on dialysis (G4-5) can be challenging. Laboratory biomarkers, such as glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), may be biased by abnormalities in blood haemoglobin, use of iron therapy and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and chronic inflammation due to uraemia. Similarly, glycated albumin and fructosamine may be biased by abnormal protein turnover. Patients with advanced CKD exhibited heterogeneity in glycemic control ranging from severe insulin resistance to 'burnt-out' beta-cell function. They also had high risk of hypoglycaemia due to reduced renal gluconeogenesis, frequent use of insulin and dysregulation of counterregulatory hormones. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems measure glucose in interstitial fluid every few minutes and provide an alternative and more reliable method of glycemic assessment, including asymptomatic hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemic excursions. Recent international guidelines recommended use of CGM-derived Glucose Management Index (GMI) in patients with advanced CKD although data are scarce in this population. Using CGM, patients with CKD were found to experience marked glycemic fluctuations with hypoglycemia due to loss of glucose and insulin during haemodialysis (HD) followed by hyperglycemia in the post-HD period. On the other hand, during peritoneal dialysis, patients may experience glycemic excursions with influx of glucose from dialysate solutions. These undesirable glucose exposure and variability may accelerate decline of residual renal function. Although CGM may improve the quality of glycemic monitoring and control in populations with CKD, further studies are needed to confirm the accuracy, optimal mode and frequency of CGM as well as their cost-effectiveness and user-acceptability in patients with advanced CKD and dialysis.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitor in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Requiring Insulin Infusion: An Observational Study

CONTEXT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a need for remote blood glucose (BG) monitoring in the intensive care unit (ICU).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate feasibility and patient safety of a hybrid monitoring strategy of point-of-care (POC) BG plus continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in the ICU.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

SETTING

ICU of an academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients with COVID-19 on IV insulin.

INTERVENTION

After meeting initial validation criteria, CGM was used for IV insulin titration and POC BG was performed every 6 hours or as needed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included frequency of POC BG, workflow, safety, and accuracy measures.

RESULTS

The study included 19 patients, 18 with CGM data, mean age 58 years, 89% on mechanical ventilation, 37% on vasopressors, and 42% on dialysis. The median time to CGM validation was 137 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 114-206). During IV insulin, the median number of POC values was 7 (IQR 6-16) on day 1, and declined slightly thereafter (71% reduction compared with standard of 24/day). The median number of CGM values used nonadjunctively to titrate IV insulin was 11.5 (IQR 0, 15) on day 1 and increased thereafter. Time in range 70 to 180 mg/dL was 64 ± 23% on day 1 and 72 ± 16% on days 2 through 7, whereas time <70 mg/dL was 1.5 ± 4.1% on day 1 and <1% on days 2 through 7.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides data to support that CGM using a hybrid protocol is feasible, accurate, safe, and has potential to reduce nursing and staff workload.

The impact of diabetes on heart failure development: The cardio-renal-metabolic connection

Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are often associated in type 2 diabetes (T2D), aggravate each other and exert synergistic effects to increase the risk of cardiac and renal events. The risks of renal worsening in HF patients and HF in CKD patients need to be evaluated to tailor preventive therapy. The recent CV and renal trials enriched our knowledge about the natural history of HF and CKD in T2D and provided evidence for the benefit of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in HF and renal decline prevention. SGLT-2is are the best choice in patients with HFrEF to improve CV prognosis and HF-related outcomes and also to prevent kidney-related outcomes, and in CKD patients to slow down renal failure and also reduce hospitalization for HF and CV death. In both situations the number of patients to treat in order to prevent such events in one patient is lower than in the general T2D population at high CV risk. GLP1-receptor agonists could be an alternative in a patient who is intolerant or has a contraindication to SGLT-2is. A tight collaboration between diabetologists, nephrologists and cardiologists should be encouraged for a holistic and effective strategy to reduce the burden of cardio-renal-metabolic interaction.

Clinical and socio-demographic determinants of self-care behaviours in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus: A multicentre cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Self-care is vital for patients with heart failure to maintain health and quality of life, and it is even more vital for those who are also affected by diabetes mellitus, since they are at higher risk of worse outcomes. The literature is unclear on the influence of diabetes on heart failure self-care as well as on the influence of socio-demographic and clinical factors on self-care.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To compare self-care maintenance, self-care management and self-care confidence of patients with heart failure and diabetes versus those heart failure patients without diabetes; (2) to estimate if the presence of diabetes influences self-care maintenance, self-care management and self-care confidence of heart failure patients; (3) to identify socio-demographic and clinical determinants of self-care maintenance, self-care management and self-care confidence in patients with heart failure and diabetes.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics from 29 Italian provinces.

PARTICIPANTS

1192 adults with confirmed diagnosis of heart failure.

METHODS

Socio-demographic and clinical data were abstracted from patients' medical records. Self-care maintenance, self-care management and self-care confidence were measured with the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index Version 6.2; each scale has a standardized score from 0 to 100, where a score <70 indicates inadequate self-care. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1192 heart failure patients, 379 (31.8%) had diabetes. In these 379, heart failure self-care behaviours were suboptimal (means range from 53.2 to 55.6). No statistically significant differences were found in any of the three self-care measures in heart failure patients with and without diabetes. The presence of diabetes did not influence self-care maintenance (p=0.12), self-care management (p=0.21) or self-care confidence (p=0.51). Age (p=0.04), number of medications (p=0.01), presence of a caregiver (p=0.04), family income (p=0.009) and self-care confidence (p<0.001) were determinants of self-care maintenance. Gender (p=0.01), number of medications (p=0.004) and self-care confidence (p<0.001) were significant determinants of self-care management. Number of medications (p=0.002) and cognitive function (p<0.001) were determinants of self-care confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-care was poor in heart failure patients with diabetes mellitus. This population needs more intensive interventions to improve self-care. Determinants of self-care in heart failure patients with diabetes mellitus should be systematically assessed by clinicians to identify patients at risk of inadequate self-care.

Glycemic variability during algorithmic titration of insulin among hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure

AIMS

The objective of this study is to assess hypoglycemia and glycemic variability (GV) in hospitalized patients with and without heart failure (HF) exacerbation.

METHODS

Hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with (N=35) or without (N=16) HF who had hyperglycemia or significant insulin use were included. Subjects underwent continuous glucose monitoring during algorithmic titration of basal bolus insulin.

RESULTS

HF subjects had lower glucose coefficient of variation ([CV], 31±12 vs. 22±8.2, p=0.02), lower Low Blood Glucose Index (LBGI) and less hypoglycemia (25% vs. 2.6%, p=0.02), but similar mean glucose and glycemic lability index as non-HF subjects on day 1, but not on day 2. Sensor CV was correlated with hypoglycemia (ρ 0.32, p=0.02), HF status (ρ -0.35, p=0.013), T2D duration (ρ 0.29, p=0.04), insulin use prior to admission (ρ 0.42, p=0.002) and catecholamine levels. After controlling for differences in age, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, catecholamine levels, QT interval, and beta blocker use, only HF and diabetes duration or insulin use prior to admission were independent predictors of CV. HF had less robust associations with LBGI in multivariable models.

CONCLUSIONS

HF is not associated with increased GV or hypoglycemia risk during initial titration of insulin. Further research is needed to determine prognostic implications.