Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Lipids, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Division of Endocrinology, Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Diabetes Care. 2021 Jul;44(7):1641-1646. doi: 10.2337/dc20-2856. Epub 2021 Jun 7.
Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have transformed ambulatory diabetes management. Until recently, inpatient use of CGM has remained investigational, with limited data on its accuracy in the hospital setting.
To analyze the accuracy of Dexcom G6, we compared retrospective matched-pair CGM and capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose data from three inpatient CGM studies (two interventional and one observational) in general medicine and surgery patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Analysis of accuracy metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD), median absolute relative difference (ARD), and proportion of CGM values within 15, 20, and 30% or 15, 20, and 30 mg/dL of POC reference values for blood glucose >100 mg/dL or ≤100 mg/dL, respectively (% 15/15, % 20/20, % 30/30). Clinical reliability was assessed with Clarke error grid (CEG) analyses.
A total of 218 patients were included (96% with type 2 diabetes) with a mean age of 60.6 ± 12 years. The overall MARD ( = 4,067 matched glucose pairs) was 12.8%, and median ARD was 10.1% (interquartile range 4.6, 17.6]. The proportions of readings meeting % 15/15, % 20/20, and % 30/30 criteria were 68.7, 81.7, and 93.8%, respectively. CEG analysis showed 98.7% of all values in zones A and B. MARD and median ARD were higher in the case of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and severe anemia (hemoglobin <7 g/dL).
Our results indicate that CGM technology is a reliable tool for hospital use and may help improve glucose monitoring in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes.
连续血糖监测(CGM)的进步改变了门诊糖尿病管理方式。直到最近,CGM 在住院患者中的应用仍处于研究阶段,有关其在医院环境中准确性的数据有限。
为了分析 Dexcom G6 的准确性,我们比较了来自三项住院 CGM 研究(两项干预性研究和一项观察性研究)的回顾性配对 CGM 和毛细血管即时检测(POC)葡萄糖数据,这些研究涉及接受胰岛素治疗的内科和外科糖尿病患者。准确性指标的分析包括平均绝对相对差异(MARD)、中位数绝对相对差异(ARD)以及当血糖 >100 mg/dL 或 ≤100 mg/dL 时,CGM 值分别在 POC 参考值的 15%、20%和 30%或 15%、20%和 30%以内的比例(% 15/15、% 20/20、% 30/30)。临床可靠性评估采用 Clarke 误差网格(CEG)分析。
共纳入 218 例患者(96%为 2 型糖尿病患者),平均年龄为 60.6±12 岁。总体 MARD(=218 对配对葡萄糖值)为 12.8%,中位数 ARD 为 10.1%(四分位距 4.6,17.6)。符合% 15/15、% 20/20 和 % 30/30 标准的读数比例分别为 68.7%、81.7%和 93.8%。CEG 分析显示所有值的 98.7%均位于 A 和 B 区。低血糖(<70 mg/dL)和严重贫血(血红蛋白<7 g/dL)时,MARD 和中位数 ARD 更高。
我们的结果表明,CGM 技术是一种可靠的医院应用工具,可能有助于改善非危重症住院糖尿病患者的血糖监测。