Continuous glucose monitoring on the ICU using a subcutaneous sensor

Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Glycemic control poses a challenge in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and dysglycemia is associated with poor outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been successfully implemented in the type 1 diabetes out-patient setting and renewed interest has been directed into the transition of CGM into the ICU. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of CGM accuracy in ICU patients to inform future research and CGM implementation.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE between 5th of December 2023 and 21st of May 2024 and reported findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We assessed studies reporting the accuracy of CGM in the ICU and report study characteristics and accuracy outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 2133 studies, of which 96 were included. Most studies were observational (91.7%), conducted in adult patients (74%), in mixed ICUs (47.9%), from 2014 and onward, and assessed subcutaneous CGM systems (80%) using arterial blood samples as reference test (40.6%). Half of the studies (56.3%) mention the use of a prespecified reference test protocol. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) ranged from 6.6 to 30.5% for all subcutaneous CGM studies. For newer factory calibrated CGM, MARD ranged from 9.7 to 20.6%. MARD for intravenous CGM was 5-14.2% and 6.4-13% for intraarterial CGM.

CONCLUSIONS

In this scoping review of CGM accuracy in the ICU, we found great diversity in accuracy reporting. Accuracy varied depending on CGM and comparator, and may be better for intravascular CGM and potentially lower during hypoglycemia.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Blood glucose level variability has been associated with increased risk of complication in the postoperative setting of cardiovascular surgery. Although interesting for optimization of blood glucose management in this context, continuous blood glucose (CBG) devices can have a limited reliability in this context, in particular because of the use of paracetamol. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of Dexcom G6®, a recently developed continuous glucose monitoring device.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational, non-randomized, single-centre study comparing Dexcom G6® CBG level monitoring with the standard methods routinely used in this context. The standard blood glucose values were paired to the time corresponding values measured with Dexcom G6®. Agreement between the two methods and potential correlation in case of paracetamol use were calculated.

RESULTS

From May 2020 to August 2021, 36 out of 206 patients operated for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting were enrolled; 673 paired blood glucose level were analyzed. Global agreement (ρc) was 0.85 (95% C.I.: 0.84-0.86), intensive care unit agreement was 0.78 (95%C.I.: 0.74-0.82) and ward agreement was 0.91 (95%C.I.: 0.89-0.93). In the diabetic population, it was 0.87 (95%C.I.: 0.85-0.90). When paracetamol was used, the difference was 0.02 mmol/l (95%C.I.: 0.29-0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexcom G6® provides good blood glucose level accuracy in the postoperative context of cardiac surgery compared to the standard methods of measurements. The results are particularly reliable in the ward where the need for repeated capillary glucose measurements implies patient discomfort and time-consuming manipulations for the nursing staff.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have suddenly become part of routine care in many hospitals. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated the use of new technologies and new processes to care for hospitalized patients, including diabetes patients. The use of CGMs to automatically and remotely supplement or replace assisted monitoring of blood glucose by bedside nurses can decrease: the amount of necessary nursing exposure to COVID-19 patients with diabetes; the amount of time required for obtaining blood glucose measurements, and the amount of personal protective equipment necessary for interacting with patients during the blood glucose testing. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now exercising enforcement discretion and not objecting to certain factory-calibrated CGMs being used in a hospital setting, both to facilitate patient care and to obtain performance data that can be used for future regulatory submissions. CGMs can be used in the hospital to decrease the frequency of fingerstick point of care capillary blood glucose testing, decrease hyperglycemic episodes, and decrease hypoglycemic episodes. Most of the research on CGMs in the hospital has focused on their accuracy and only recently outcomes data has been reported. A hospital CGM program requires cooperation of physicians, bedside nurses, diabetes educators, and hospital administrators to appropriately select and manage patients. Processes for collecting, reviewing, storing, and responding to CGM data must be established for such a program to be successful. CGM technology is advancing and we expect that CGMs will be increasingly used in the hospital for patients with diabetes.

Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Blood glucose control in the intensive care unit: Where is the data?

Blood glucose control, including hyperglycemia correction, maintaining glucose at optimal level and avoiding hypoglycemia, is a challenge clinicians face every day in intensive care units (ICUs). If managed inadequately, its related mortality can increase. Prior to 2001, no relevant data from randomized, controlled studies assessing glucose control in the ICU were available. In the past 18 years, however, many clinical trials have defined criteria for managing abnormal blood glucose levels, as well as provided suggestions for glycemic monitoring. Point-of-care blood glucose monitors have become the preferred bedside technology to aid in glycemic management. In addition, in some institutions, continuous glucose monitoring is now available. Cost-effectiveness of adequate glycemic control in the ICU must be taken into consideration when addressing this complex issue. Newer types of glycemic monitoring may reduce nursing staff fatigue and shorten times for the treatment of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. There are a variety of glycemic care protocols available. However, not all ICU clinicians are aware of them. The following minireview describes some of these concepts.

Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill

Hyperglycemia is common in the intensive care unit (ICU) both in patients with and without a previous diagnosis of diabetes. The optimal glucose range in the ICU population is still a matter of debate. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with intensive insulin therapy, current recommendations include treating hyperglycemia after two consecutive glucose >180 mg/dL with target levels of 140-180 mg/dL for most patients. The optimal method of sampling glucose and delivery of insulin in critically ill patients remains elusive. While point of care glucose meters are not consistently accurate and have to be used with caution, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is not standard of care, nor is it generally recommended for inpatient use. Intravenous insulin therapy using paper or electronic protocols remains the preferred approach for critically ill patients. The advent of new technologies, such as electronic glucose management, CGM, and closed-loop systems, promises to improve inpatient glycemic control in the critically ill with lower rates of hypoglycemia.

Head-to-head comparison of two continuous glucose monitoring systems on a cardio-surgical ICU

In critical illness hypo-and hyperglycemia have a negative influence on patient outcome. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could help in early detection of hypo-and hyperglycemia. A requirement for these new methods is an acceptable accuracy and precision in clinical practice. In this pilot study we prospectively evaluated the accuracy and precision of two CGM sensors (subcutaneous sensor: Sentrino®, Medtronic and intravasal sensor: Glucoclear®, Edwards) in 20 patients on a cardio-surgical ICU in a head to head comparison. CGM data were recorded for up to 48 h and values were compared with blood-gas-analysis (BGA) values, analysed with Bland-Altman-plots and color-coded surveillance error-grids. Shown are means ± standard deviations. In total 270/255 intravasal/subcutaneous pairs with BGA-values were analysed. The average runtime of the sensors was 28.4 ± 6.4 h. Correlation with BGA values yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.76 (subcutaneous sensor) and 0.92 (intravasal sensor). The Bland Altman Plots revealed an accuracy of 2.5 mg/dl, and a precision of + 43.0 mg/dl to - 38.0 mg/dl (subcutaneous sensor) and an accuracy of - 6.0 mg/dl, and a precision of + 12.4 mg/dl to - 24.4 mg/dl (intravasal sensor). No severe hypoglycemic event, defined as BG level below 40 mg/dl, occurred during treatment. Both sensors showed good accuracy in comparison to the BGA values, however they differ regarding precision, which in case of the subcutaneous sensor is considerable high.

Diabetes Technology Update: Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital

The use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems has gained wide acceptance in diabetes care. These devices have been demonstrated to be clinically valuable, improving glycemic control and reducing risks of hypoglycemia in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Approximately 30-40% of patients with type 1 diabetes and an increasing number of insulin-requiring patients with type 2 diabetes are using pump and sensor technology. As the popularity of these devices increases, it becomes very likely that hospital health care providers will face the need to manage the inpatient care of patients under insulin pump therapy and CGM. The American Diabetes Association advocates allowing patients who are physically and mentally able to continue to use their pumps when hospitalized. Health care institutions must have clear policies and procedures to allow the patient to continue to receive CSII treatment to maximize safety and to comply with existing regulations related to self-management of medication. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether CSII therapy and CGM systems in the hospital are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with intermittent monitoring and conventional insulin treatment or with a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

Consensus Statement on Inpatient Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

In June 2016, Diabetes Technology Society convened a panel of US experts in inpatient diabetes management to discuss the current and potential role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital. This discussion combined with a literature review was a follow-up to a meeting, which took place in May 2015. The panel reviewed evidence on use of CGM in 3 potential inpatient scenarios: (1) the intensive care unit (ICU), (2) non-ICU, and (3) transitioning outpatient CGM use into the hospital setting. Panel members agreed that data from limited studies and theoretical considerations suggested that use of CGM in the hospital had the potential to improve patient clinical outcomes, and in particular reduction of hypoglycemia. Panel members discussed barriers to widespread adoption of CGM, which patients would benefit most from use of this technology, and what type of outcome studies are needed to guide use of CGM in the inpatient setting.

Accuracy, reliability, feasibility and nurse acceptance of a subcutaneous continuous glucose management system in critically ill patients: a prospective clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has not yet been implemented in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate reliability, feasibility, nurse acceptance and accuracy of the Medtronic Sentrino(®) CGM system in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Sensors were inserted into the subcutaneous tissue of the patient's thigh, quantifying interstitial glucose concentration for up to 72 h per sensor. Reliability and feasibility analysis included frequency of data display, data gaps and reasons for sensor removal. We surveyed nurse acceptance in a questionnaire. For the accuracy analysis, we compared sensor values to glucose values obtained via blood gas analysis. Potential benefits of CGM were investigated in intra-individual analyses of factors, such as glycemic variability or time in target range achieved with CGM compared to that achieved with intermittent glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

The device generated 68,655 real-time values from 31 sensors in 20 critically ill patients. 532 comparative blood glucose values were collected. Data were displayed during 32.5 h [16.0/62.4] per sensor, which is 45.1 % of the expected time of 72 h and 84.8 % of 37.9 h actual monitoring time. 21 out of 31 sensors were removed prematurely. 79.1 % of the nursing staff rated the device as not beneficial; the response rate was one-third. Mean absolute relative difference was 15.3 % (CI 13.5-17.0 %). Clarke error grid: 76.9 % zone A, 21.6 % zone B, 0.2 % zone C, 0.9 % zone D, 0.4 % zone E. Bland-Altman plot: mean bias +0.53 mg/dl, limits of agreement +64.6 and -63.5 mg/dl. Accuracy deteriorated during elevated glycemic variability and in the hyperglycemic range. There was no reduction in dysglycemic events during CGM compared to 72 h before and after CGM. If CGM was measuring accurately, it identified more hyperglycemic events when compared to intermittent measurements. This study was not designed to evaluate potential benefits of CGM on glucose control.

CONCLUSIONS

The subcutaneous CGM system did not perform with satisfactory accuracy, feasibility, or nursing acceptance when evaluated in 20 medical-surgical ICU patients. Low point accuracy and prolonged data gaps significantly limited the potential clinical usefulness of the CGM trend data. Accurate continuous data display, with a MARD < 14 %, showed potential benefits in a subgroup of our patients. Trial registration NCT02296372; Ethic vote Charité EA2/095/14.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Extracorporeal Ventricular Assist Therapy

Background

Dysregulations of blood glucose (BG) are associated with adverse outcome in critical illness; controlling BG to target appears to improve outcome. Since BG-control is challenging in daily intensive care practice BG-control remains poor especially in patients with rapidly fluctuating BG. To improve BG-control and to avoid deleterious hypoglycemia, automated online-measurement tools are advocated. We thus evaluated the point-accuracy of the subcutaneous Sentrino^® Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGM, Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California) in patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiac life support (ECLS) for cardiogenic shock.

Methods

Management of BG was performed according to institute’s standard aiming at BG-levels between 100–145 mg/dl. CGM-values were recorded without taking measures into therapeutic account. Point-accuracy in comparison to intermittent BG-measurement by the ABL-blood-gas analyzer was determined.

Results

CGM (n = 25 patients) correlated significantly with ABL-values (r = 0.733, p<0.001). Mean error from standard was 15.0 mg/dl (11.9%). 44.2% of the readings were outside a 15% range around ABL-values. In one of 635 paired data-points, ABL revealed hypoglycemia (BG 32 mg/dl) whereas CGM did not show hypoglycemic values (132mg/dl).

Conclusions

CGM reveals minimally invasive BG-values in critically ill adults with dynamically impaired tissue perfusion. Because of potential deviations from standard, CGM-readings must be interpreted with caution in specific ICU-populations.