Lejk Agnieszka, Myśliwiec Karolina, Michalak Arkadiusz, Pernak Barbara, Fendler Wojciech, Myśliwiec Małgorzata
Department of Pediatrics, Diabetology and Endocrinology, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-210 Gdansk, Poland.
Department of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, 92-215 Lodz, Poland.
Children (Basel). 2024 Jul 10;11(7):839. doi: 10.3390/children11070839.
While insulin pumps remain the most common form of therapy for youths with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), they differ in the extent to which they utilize data from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automate insulin delivery.
The aim of the study was to compare metabolic control in patients using different models of insulin pumps. This retrospective single-center study randomly sampled 30 patients for each of the following treatments: Medtronic 720G without PLGS (predictive low glucose suspend), Medtronic 640G or 740G with PLGS and Medtronic 780G. In the whole study group, we used CGM systems to assess patients' metabolic control, and we collected lipid profiles. In three groups of patients, we utilized CGM sensors (Guardian 3, Guardian 4, Libre 2 and Dexcom G6) to measure the following glycemic variability proxy values: time in range (TIR), time below 70 mg/dL (TBR), time above 180 mg/dL (TAR), coefficient of variation (CV) and mean sensor glucose.
Medtronic 640G or 740G and 780G users were more likely to achieve a target time in the target range 70-180 mg/dL (≥80%) [Medtronic 720G = 4 users (13.3%) vs. Medtronic 640G/740G = 10 users (33.3%) vs. Medtronic 780G = 13 users (43.3%); = 0.0357)] or low glucose variability [Medtronic 720G = 9 users (30%) vs. Medtronic 640G/740G = 18 users (60%) vs. Medtronic 780G = 19 users (63.3%); = 0.0175)].
Any integration between the insulin pump and CGM was associated with better glycemic control. More advanced technologies and artificial intelligence in diabetes help patients maintain better glycemia by eliminating various factors affecting postprandial glycemia.
虽然胰岛素泵仍然是1型糖尿病（T1DM）青少年最常见的治疗方式，但它们在利用连续血糖监测（CGM）数据和自动胰岛素输送的程度上存在差异。
本研究的目的是比较使用不同型号胰岛素泵的患者的代谢控制情况。这项回顾性单中心研究对以下每种治疗随机抽取了30名患者：无预测性低血糖暂停（PLGS）功能的美敦力720G、有PLGS功能的美敦力640G或740G以及美敦力780G。在整个研究组中，我们使用CGM系统评估患者的代谢控制情况，并收集血脂谱。在三组患者中，我们使用CGM传感器（Guardian 3、Guardian 4、Libre 2和德康G6）测量以下血糖变异性替代值：血糖在目标范围内的时间（TIR）、低于70mg/dL的时间（TBR）、高于180mg/dL的时间（TAR）、变异系数（CV）和传感器平均血糖值。
使用美敦力640G或740G以及780G的患者更有可能实现血糖在70 - 180mg/dL目标范围内的时间达到目标值（≥80%）[美敦力720G = 4名患者（13.3%），美敦力640G/740G = 10名患者（33.3%），美敦力780G = 13名患者（43.3%）；P = 0.0357]或血糖变异性较低[美敦力720G = 9名患者（30%），美敦力640G/740G = 18名患者（60%），美敦力780G = 19名患者（63.3%）；P = 0.0175]。
胰岛素泵与CGM之间的任何整合都与更好的血糖控制相关。糖尿病领域更先进的技术和人工智能通过消除影响餐后血糖的各种因素，帮助患者维持更好的血糖水平。
