Back to Search
Start Over
Accuracy of a CGM Sensor in Pediatric Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes. Comparison of Three Insertion Sites: Arm, Abdomen, and Gluteus
- Publication Year :
- 2017
- Publisher :
- SAGE Publications Inc., 2017.
-
Abstract
- Patients with diabetes, especially pediatric ones, sometimes use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor in different positions from the approved ones. Here we compare the accuracy of Dexcom® G5 CGM sensor in three different sites: abdomen, gluteus (both approved) and arm (off-label). Background: Patients with diabetes, especially pediatric ones, sometimes use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor in different positions from the approved ones. Here we compare the accuracy of Dexcom® G5 CGM sensor in three different sites: abdomen, gluteus (both approved) and arm (off-label). Method: Thirty youths, 5-9 years old, with type 1 diabetes (T1D) wore the sensor during a clinical trial where frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) measurements were obtained. Sensor was inserted in different sites according to the patient habit. Accuracy metrics include absolute relative difference (ARD) and absolute difference (AD) of CGM with respect to SMBG. The three sites were compared with ANOVA. If the test detected a difference, an additional pair-wise comparison was performed. Results: Overall, no accuracy difference was detected: the mean ARD was 13.3% (SD = 13.5%) for abdomen, 13.4% (12.9%) for arm and 12.9% (20.2%) for gluteus (P value =.83); the mean AD was 17.0 mg/dl (17.2 mg/dl) for abdomen, 17.2 mg/dl (17.1 mg/dl) for arm and 18.3 mg/dl (18.5 mg/dl) for gluteus (P value =.30). In hypo- and euglycemia ARD (P value =.87 and.15, respectively), and AD (P value =.68 and.37, respectively) were not statistically different. At variance, in hyperglycemia, a significant difference was detected between the two approved sites, abdomen and gluteus (ÎARD = â2.2% [CI = â4.2%, â0.1%], P value =.04), whereas the comparisons with the off-label location, arm-abdomen, and arm-gluteus were not significant. Conclusions: These results suggest that the accuracy of the sensor placed on the arm was not significantly different with respect to the two approved insertion sites (abdomen and gluteus). Larger, randomized trials are needed to draw final conclusions.
- Subjects :
- Blood Glucose
Male
type 1 diabetes
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
Predictive Value of Test
Computer-Assisted
0302 clinical medicine
insertion site
Abdomen
Insulin
030212 general & internal medicine
Child
type 1 diabete
Continuous glucose monitoring
Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted
Equipment Design
Algorithm
medicine.anatomical_structure
Child, Preschool
Arm
Female
continuous glucose monitoring
insertion sites
Algorithms
Human
Type 1
medicine.medical_specialty
accuracy evaluation
Monitoring
Transducers
Biomedical Engineering
Reproducibility of Result
Monitoring, Ambulatory
030209 endocrinology & metabolism
Bioengineering
03 medical and health sciences
Insulin Infusion Systems
Predictive Value of Tests
Diabetes mellitus
Ambulatory
Diabetes Mellitus
Internal Medicine
medicine
Humans
Hypoglycemic Agents
Preschool
Analysis of Variance
Type 1 diabetes
Hypoglycemic Agent
pediatric
business.industry
Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring
Reproducibility of Results
Biomarker
Original Articles
medicine.disease
Surgery
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
Insulin Infusion System
Buttock
Signal Processing
Buttocks
business
Biomarkers
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....577a3a8a4f8c0587e930f99f27dd7610