Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites

Isabelle Isa Kristin Steineck, Zeinab Mahmoudi*, Ajenthen Ranjan, Signe Schmidt, John Bagterp Jørgensen, Kirsten Nørgaard

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom® G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults. Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed. Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6% and CGMarm was 86.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3%. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1% and the CGMarm was 85.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0% and the CGMarm was 71.1%. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05. Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.
Original languageEnglish
JournalDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Volume21
Issue number5
Number of pages8
ISSN1520-9156
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • Abdomen
  • Accuracy
  • Arm
  • CGM
  • Continuous glucose monitoring
  • Insertion sites

Cite this

Steineck, Isabelle Isa Kristin ; Mahmoudi, Zeinab ; Ranjan, Ajenthen ; Schmidt, Signe ; Jørgensen, John Bagterp ; Nørgaard, Kirsten. / Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites. In: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2019 ; Vol. 21, No. 5.
@article{6d1d1715252c41699c9582c11bd28cc0,
title = "Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites",
abstract = "Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom{\circledR} G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults. Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed. Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3{\%} and CGMarm was 12.0{\%}. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6{\%} and CGMarm was 86.0{\%}. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3{\%}. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5{\%} and CGMarm was 12.0{\%}. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1{\%} and the CGMarm was 85.0{\%}. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0{\%} and the CGMarm was 71.1{\%}. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05. Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.",
keywords = "Abdomen, Accuracy, Arm, CGM, Continuous glucose monitoring, Insertion sites",
author = "Steineck, {Isabelle Isa Kristin} and Zeinab Mahmoudi and Ajenthen Ranjan and Signe Schmidt and J{\o}rgensen, {John Bagterp} and Kirsten N{\o}rgaard",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1089/dia.2019.0014",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics",
issn = "1520-9156",
publisher = "Mary AnnLiebert, Inc. Publishers",
number = "5",

}

Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites. / Steineck, Isabelle Isa Kristin; Mahmoudi, Zeinab; Ranjan, Ajenthen; Schmidt, Signe; Jørgensen, John Bagterp; Nørgaard, Kirsten.

In: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites

AU - Steineck, Isabelle Isa Kristin

AU - Mahmoudi, Zeinab

AU - Ranjan, Ajenthen

AU - Schmidt, Signe

AU - Jørgensen, John Bagterp

AU - Nørgaard, Kirsten

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom® G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults. Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed. Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6% and CGMarm was 86.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3%. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1% and the CGMarm was 85.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0% and the CGMarm was 71.1%. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05. Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.

AB - Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom® G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults. Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed. Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6% and CGMarm was 86.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3%. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1% and the CGMarm was 85.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0% and the CGMarm was 71.1%. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05. Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.

KW - Abdomen

KW - Accuracy

KW - Arm

KW - CGM

KW - Continuous glucose monitoring

KW - Insertion sites

U2 - 10.1089/dia.2019.0014

DO - 10.1089/dia.2019.0014

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30994362

VL - 21

JO - Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

JF - Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

SN - 1520-9156

IS - 5

ER -