Glucose Control in the Intensive Care Unit by Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: What Level of Measurement Error Is Acceptable?

Abstract

BACKGROUND Accuracy and frequency of glucose measurement is essential to achieve safe and efficacious glucose control in the intensive care unit. Emerging continuous glucose monitors provide frequent measurements, trending information, and alarms. The objective of this study was to establish the level of accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) associated with safe and efficacious glucose control in the intensive care unit. METHODS We evaluated 3 established glucose control protocols [Yale, University of Washington, and Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Surviving Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation (NICE-SUGAR)] by use of computer simulations. Insulin delivery was informed by intermittent blood glucose (BG) measurements or CGM levels with an increasing level of measurement error. Measures of glucose control included mean glucose, glucose variability, proportion of time glucose was in target range, and hypoglycemia episodes. RESULTS Apart from the Washington protocol, CGM with mean absolute relative deviation (MARD) ≤15% resulted in similar mean glucose as with the use of intermittent BG measurements. Glucose variability was also similar between CGM and BG-informed protocols. Frequency and duration of hypoglycemia were not worse by use of CGM with MARD ≤10%. Measures of glucose control varied more between protocols than at different levels of the CGM error. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of CGM-informed and BG-informed commonly used glucose protocols is similar, but the risk of hypoglycemia may be reduced by use of CGM with MARD ≤10%. Protocol choice has greater influence on glucose control measures than the glucose measurement method.

The artificial pancreas: evaluating risk of hypoglycaemia following errors that can be expected with prolonged at‐home use

“…These analyses can potentially be performed using computer simulation models; however, before relying on simulations, investigators should confirm that the simulations produce results consistent with the expected behaviour of the controller or the behaviour observed in prior clinical studies, as differences have been noted 24. Investigators should also be aware that multiple simulation models have been developed with possibility that different models will yield different results 25, 26, 27, 28.…”

Nonadjunctive Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Diabetes Treatment Decisions

“…Wilinska and Hovorka presented a similar finding when modeling the use of CGM values to drive insulin delivery in an ICU setting using 3 established glucose control protocols. 27 The published accuracy of the recently released Dexcom 505 algorithm meets this proposed MARD safety threshold of less than 10% in clinical testing across a range of glucose levels from 40 to 400 mg/dL (2.2-22 mmol/L). 28 The Randomized Trial Comparing Continuous Glucose Monitoring With and Without Routine Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (REPLACE-BG) is currently underway, evaluating the nonadjunctive use of the Dexcom system with the 505 algorithm in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using insulin pumps.…”

Glucose Variability Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Assessment Is Associated with Postoperative Complications after Cardiovascular Surgery

“…Such CGM systems are increasingly used in inpatient settings. [19][20][21][22] The feasibility and precision of the CGM system have been demonstrated in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery 23) and cardiac surgery. 24) The CGM system has the ability to measure subcutaneous glucose levels every 5 minutes and can, therefore, be expected to evaluate glucose variability and the suitability of perioperative blood glucose management more precisely than intermittent blood glucose analysis, which is generally performed at 1-or 2-hour intervals in the ICU.…”