Suppr超能文献

在 1 型糖尿病患者的住院研究中,对美敦力 Sof-sensor 和 Enlite 葡萄糖传感器的性能进行比较。

Performance comparison of the medtronic sof-sensor and enlite glucose sensors in inpatient studies of individuals with type 1 diabetes.

机构信息

Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida 33647, USA.

出版信息

Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Sep;15(9):758-61. doi: 10.1089/dia.2013.0042. Epub 2013 May 31.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Knowledge of the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices is important for its use as a management tool for individuals with diabetes and for its use to assess outcomes in clinical studies. Using data from several inpatient studies, we compared the accuracy of two sensors, the Medtronic Enlite™ using MiniMed Paradigm(®) Veo™ calibration and the Sof-Sensor(®) glucose sensor using Guardian(®) REAL-Time CGM calibration (all from Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Nocturnal data were analyzed from eight inpatient studies in which both CGM and reference glucose measurements were available. The analyses included 1,666 CGM-reference paired glucose values for the Enlite in 54 participants over 69 nights and 3,627 paired values for the Sof-Sensor in 66 participants over 91 nights.

RESULTS

The Enlite sensor tended to report glucose levels lower than the reference over the entire range of glucose values, whereas the Sof-Sensor values tended to be higher than reference values in the hypoglycemic range and lower than reference values in the hyperglycemic range. The overall median sensor-reference difference was -15 mg/dL for the Enlite and -1 mg/dL for the Sof-Sensor (P<0.001). The median relative absolute difference was 15% for the Enlite versus 12% for the Sof-Sensor (P=0.06); 66% of Enlite values and 73% of Sof-Sensor values met International Organization for Standardization criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the Enlite tended to be biased low over the entire glucose range, whereas the Sof-Sensor showed the more typical sensor pattern of being biased high in the hypoglycemic range and biased low in the hyperglycemic range.

摘要

目的

了解连续血糖监测(CGM)设备的准确性对于将其作为糖尿病患者管理工具的使用以及评估临床研究结果非常重要。使用来自几项住院研究的数据,我们比较了两种传感器的准确性,即使用 MiniMed Paradigm(®)Veo(™)校准的 Medtronic Enlite(™)和使用 Guardian(®)实时 CGM 校准的 Sof-Sensor(®)葡萄糖传感器(均来自 Medtronic Diabetes,Northridge,CA)。

受试者和方法

对 8 项住院研究中的夜间数据进行了分析,这些研究中均同时提供 CGM 和参考血糖测量值。分析包括 54 名参与者的 69 晚的 Enlite 共 1666 对 CGM-参考葡萄糖值和 66 名参与者的 91 晚的 Sof-Sensor 共 3627 对 CGM-参考葡萄糖值。

结果

整个血糖值范围内,Enlite 传感器倾向于报告的血糖值低于参考值,而 Sof-Sensor 值在低血糖范围内倾向于高于参考值,在高血糖范围内则低于参考值。Enlite 的总体中位数传感器-参考差值为-15mg/dL,而 Sof-Sensor 的为-1mg/dL(P<0.001)。Enlite 的中位数相对绝对差值为 15%,而 Sof-Sensor 的为 12%(P=0.06);Enlite 有 66%的值和 Sof-Sensor 有 73%的值符合国际标准化组织标准。

结论

我们发现,Enlite 在整个血糖范围内倾向于偏低,而 Sof-Sensor 则显示出更典型的传感器模式,即在低血糖范围内偏高,在高血糖范围内偏低。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
Advances in Type 1 Diabetes Technology Over the Last Decade.过去十年中1型糖尿病技术的进展。
Eur Endocrinol. 2019 Aug;15(2):70-76. doi: 10.17925/EE.2019.15.2.70. Epub 2019 Aug 16.
8
Sensor Life and Overnight Closed Loop: A Randomized Clinical Trial.传感器寿命与夜间闭环:一项随机临床试验。
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 May;11(3):513-521. doi: 10.1177/1932296816678631. Epub 2016 Nov 11.
9
Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Impact on Hypoglycemia.持续血糖监测:对低血糖的影响
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Nov 1;10(6):1251-1258. doi: 10.1177/1932296816653411. Print 2016 Nov.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验