首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Biosensors >Performance of the Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) System during a High Oral Glucose Challenge in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes—A Prospective Secondary Outcome Analysis
【2h】

Performance of the Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) System during a High Oral Glucose Challenge in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes—A Prospective Secondary Outcome Analysis

机译:在1型糖尿病型糖尿病的高口腔葡萄糖攻击过程中间歇扫描连续葡萄糖监测(ISCGM)系统的性能 - 前瞻性二次结果分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

To assess intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) performance for different rates of change in plasma glucose (RCPG) during glycemic challenges in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Nineteen people with T1D (7 females; age 35 ± 11 years; HbA1c 7.3 ± 0.6% (56 ± 7 mmol/mol)) performing two glycemic challenges (OGTT) were included. During OGTTs, plasma glucose was compared against sensor glucose for timepoints 0 min (pre-OGTT), +15 min, +30 min, +60 min, +120 min, +180 min, and +240 min by means of median absolute (relative) difference (MARD and MAD) and Clarke Error Grid (CEG), then was stratified for RCPG and glycemic ranges. Overall, MARD was 8.3% (4.0–14.8) during hypoglycemia level 1 18.8% (15.8–22.0), euglycemia 9.5% (4.3–15.1), hyperglycemia level 1 9.4% (4.0–17.2), and hyperglycemia level 2 7.1% (3.3–11.9). The MARD was associated with the RCPG (p < 0.0001), detailing significant differences in comparison of low, moderate, high, and very high RCPG (p = 0.014). Overall, CEG resulted in 88% (212 values) of comparison points in zone A, 12% (29 values) in zone B, and 0.4% (1 value) in zone D. The isCGM system was accurate during OGTTs. Its performance was dependent on the RCPG and showed an overestimation of the actual reference glucose during hypoglycemia.
机译:为了在1型糖尿病(T1D)中的血糖挑战期间,在血浆挑战期间进行间歇扫描的连续葡萄糖监测(ISCGM)性能。糖尿病(T1D)中的血浆葡萄糖(RCPG)的不同速率。包括T1D(7名女性;年龄35±11岁; HBA1C 7.3±0.6%(56±7mmol / mol)进行,进行了两种血糖挑战(OGTT)。在OGTTS期间,通过中位绝对的方式比较血浆葡萄糖0分钟0分钟0 min 0 min(预ogtt),+ 15分钟,+ 30分钟,+ 60分钟和+ 240分钟(相对)差异(MARD和MAD)和CLARKE误差网格(CEG),然后分层用于RCPG和血糖范围。总体而言,MARD在低血糖水平1 18.8%(15.8-22.0)期间为8.3%(4.0-14.8),EGLYCEMIA 9.5%(4.3-15.1),高血糖水平1 9.4%(4.0-17.2),高血糖等级2 7.1%( 3.3-11.9)。墨迹与RCPG(P <0.0001)相关,详细介绍了低,中等,高,高RCPG的比较(P = 0.014)的显着差异。总体而言,CEG导致区域A,12%(29值)的比较点的88%(212值),区D中的0.4%(1值)。ISCGM系统在OGTTS期间准确。其性能依赖于RCPG,并在低血糖期间显示了实际参考葡萄糖的高估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号