Accuracy of different methods for blood glucose measurement in critically ill patients

Júnior, Sérgio Antônio Pulzi; Assunção, Murillo Santucci César de; Mazza, Bruno Franco; Fernandes, H.; Jackiu, M; Freitas, Flávio Geraldo Resende; Machado, Flávia Ribeiro

doi:10.1590/s1516-31802009000500003

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bias was assessed for Glu-ABGs in five studies [15-18,20], for Gluco-C in 13 studies [18,20-27,29-31,33,34], and for Gluco-A in 12 studies [18,20-23,25,27,28,30-32,35]. The mean differences varied between -2.7 mg/dl [17] and 25.2 mg/dl [16] in Glu-ABGs, between -16 mg/dl [23] and 9.9 mg/dl [22] in Gluco-C, and between -10 mg/dl [23] and 23.0 mg/dl [32] in Gluco-A.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the 11 studies were single-center observational studies. Nine of the 11 studies were prospective studies [15-19,21,23-25], and the other two studies were retrospective studies [20,22]. Totally, 580 patients were included in the 11 studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two methods for blood-glucose monitoring are the hexokinase method (Aeroset, Dimention, and Vista device, Au640e and Architect CI 8200) [15,17,21,22,25] and the glucose oxidase method (YSI 2300, Lx-20, Vitros950, and 5.1FS) [16,18-20,23,24]. All machines had traceability to a higher-order reference method.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In seven studies, the accuracy of Gluco-C, including SuperStrepFlexx [18], AccuCheck Inform [18-20,24], FreeStyle [18,22], Accu-Chek Sensor [21], and Contour [23], was assessed (Table 3). The accuracy of Gluco-C was assessed by using ISO criteria in one study [24], error-grid analysis in two studies [18,20], and 20% error in four studies [19,21-23].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Gluco-C, low perfusion index [36], use of a vasopressor [22,24] and presence of edema [20,24] were significantly associated with inaccuracy. For Gluco-A, use of a vasopressor [23], low peripheral perfusion, and low mean arterial pressure [21] were associated with inaccuracy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of blood-glucose measurements using glucose meters and arterial blood gas analyzers in critically ill adult patients: systematic review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGlucose control to prevent both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia is important in an intensive care unit. Arterial blood gas analyzers and glucose meters are commonly used to measure blood-glucose concentration in an intensive care unit; however, their accuracies are still unclear.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search (January 1, 2001, to August 31, 2012) to find clinical studies comparing blood-glucose values measured with glucose meters and/or arterial blood gas analyzers with those simultaneously measured with a central laboratory machine in critically ill adult patients.ResultsWe reviewed 879 articles and found 21 studies in which the accuracy of blood-glucose monitoring by arterial blood gas analyzers and/or glucometers by using central laboratory methods as references was assessed in critically ill adult patients. Of those 21 studies, 11 studies in which International Organization for Standardization criteria, error-grid method, or percentage of values within 20% of the error of a reference were used were selected for evaluation. The accuracy of blood-glucose measurements by arterial blood gas analyzers and glucose meters by using arterial blood was significantly higher than that of measurements with glucose meters by using capillary blood (odds ratios for error: 0.04, P < 0.001; and 0.36, P < 0.001). The accuracy of blood-glucose measurements with arterial blood gas analyzers tended to be higher than that of measurements with glucose meters by using arterial blood (P = 0.20). In the hypoglycemic range (defined as < 81 mg/dl), the incidence of errors using these devices was higher than that in the nonhypoglycemic range (odds ratios for error: arterial blood gas analyzers, 1.86, P = 0.15; glucose meters with capillary blood, 1.84, P = 0.03; glucose meters with arterial blood, 2.33, P = 0.02). Unstable hemodynamics (edema and use of a vasopressor) and use of insulin were associated with increased error of blood glucose monitoring with glucose meters.ConclusionsOur literature review showed that the accuracy of blood-glucose measurements with arterial blood gas analyzers was significantly higher than that of measurements with glucose meters by using capillary blood and tended to be higher than that of measurements with glucose meters by using arterial blood. These results should be interpreted with caution because of the large variation of accuracy among devices. Because blood-glucose monitoring was less accurate within or near the hypoglycemic range, especially in patients with unstable hemodynamics or receiving insulin infusion, we should be aware that current blood glucose-monitoring technology has not reached a high enough degree of accuracy and reliability to lead to appropriate glucose control in critically ill patients.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of blood-glucose measurements using glucose meters and arterial blood gas analyzers in critically ill adult patients: systematic review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020)

Egi

Ogura

Yatabe

et al. 2021

Acute Medicine & Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

show abstract

Accuracy of blood glucose measurements using the NOVA StatStrip® glucometer during cardiac surgery: a prospective observational study

Nakadate

Sato

Roque

et al. 2019

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of different methods for blood glucose measurement in critically ill patients

Cited by 21 publications

References 30 publications

Accuracy of blood-glucose measurements using glucose meters and arterial blood gas analyzers in critically ill adult patients: systematic review

Accuracy of blood-glucose measurements using glucose meters and arterial blood gas analyzers in critically ill adult patients: systematic review

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020)

Accuracy of blood glucose measurements using the NOVA StatStrip® glucometer during cardiac surgery: a prospective observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About