6533b7ddfe1ef96bd12735ad
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Extensive Assessment of Blood Glucose Monitoring During Postprandial Period and Its Impact on Closed-Loop Performance.
Josep VehíIgnacio CongetF. Javier Ampudia-blascoMarga GiménezArthur BertachiPaolo RossettiLyvia BiagiCarmen QuirósJorge Bondiasubject
Blood GlucoseMaleTime FactorsGlucose controlEndocrinology Diabetes and MetabolismSpecial Section: Artificial Pancreas: Models Signals and Control0302 clinical medicineInsulin030212 general & internal medicineContinuous glucose monitoringAccuracymedicine.diagnostic_testContinuous glucose monitoringPostprandial periodSignal Processing Computer-AssistedMiddle AgedPostprandial PeriodINGENIERIA DE SISTEMAS Y AUTOMATICAType 1 diabetesPostprandialTreatment OutcomeClosed-loop controlCardiologyFemaleGlucose monitorsAlgorithmsAdultmedicine.medical_specialtyTransducersBiomedical Engineering030209 endocrinology & metabolismBioengineering03 medical and health sciencesInsulin Infusion SystemsPredictive Value of TestsInternal medicineInternal MedicinemedicineHumansHypoglycemic AgentsBlood glucose monitoringType 1 diabetesbusiness.industryBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringReproducibility of Resultsmedicine.diseaseHypoglycemiaEndocrinologyDiabetes Mellitus Type 1businessClosed loopBiomarkersdescription
[EN] Background: Closed-loop (CL) systems aims to outperform usual treatments in blood glucose control and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are a key component in such systems. Meals represents one of the main disturbances in blood glucose control, and postprandial period (PP) is a challenging situation for both CL system and CGM accuracy. Methods: We performed an extensive analysis of sensor¿s performance by numerical accuracy and precision during PP, as well as its influence in blood glucose control under CL therapy. Results: During PP the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for both sensors presented lower accuracy in the hypoglycemic range (19.4 ± 12.8%) than in other ranges (12.2 ± 8.6% in euglycemic range and 9.3 ± 9.3% in hyperglycemic range). The overall MARD was 12.1 ± 8.2%. We have also observed lower MARD for rates of change between 0 and 2 mg/dl. In CL therapy, the 10 trials with the best sensor spent less time in hypoglycemia (PG < 70 mg/dl) than the 10 trials with the worst sensors (2 ± 7 minutes vs 32 ± 38 minutes, respectively). Conclusions: In terms of accuracy, our results resemble to previously reported. Furthermore, our results showed that sensors with the lowest MARD spent less time in hypoglycemic range, indicating that the performance of CL algorithm to control PP was related to sensor accuracy.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2017-01-01 | Journal of diabetes science and technology |