Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz
Gewählte Publikation:
SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb
Mader, JK; Weinhandl, H; Köhler, G; Plank, J; Bock, G; Korsatko, S; Ratzer, M; Ikeoka, D; Köhler, H; Pieber, TR; Ellmerer, M.
Assessment of different techniques for subcutaneous glucose monitoring in Type 1 diabetic patients during 'real-life' glucose excursions.
Diabet Med. 2010; 27(3): 332-338.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02924.x
Web of Science
PubMed
FullText
FullText_MUG
- Führende Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Mader Julia
- Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Ellmerer Martin
- Ikeoka Dimas
- Köhler Gerd
- Korsatko Stefan
- Pieber Thomas
- Treiber Gerlies
- Weinhandl Heinz
- Altmetrics:
- Dimensions Citations:
- Plum Analytics:
- Scite (citation analytics):
- Abstract:
- P>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.
- Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing)
- Abdomen -
- Adult -
- Biosensing Techniques - standards
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - metabolism
- Extracellular Fluid - metabolism
- Glucose - metabolism
- Humans -
- Male -
- Microdialysis -
- Subcutaneous Fat - metabolism
- Find related publications in this database (Keywords)
- GlucoDay S
- Guardian RT
- microdialysis
- subcutaneous glucose monitoring
- Type 1 diabetes mellitus