Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non–Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes |
| |
| Authors: | Georgia M. Davis Elias K. Spanakis Alexandra L. Migdal Lakshmi G. Singh Bonnie Albury Maria Agustina Urrutia K. Walkiria Zamudio-Coronado William H. Scott Rebecca Doerfler Sergio Lizama Medha Satyarengga Kashif Munir Rodolfo J. Galindo Priyathama Vellanki Saumeth Cardona Francisco J. Pasquel Limin Peng Guillermo E. Umpierrez |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1.Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Lipids, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA;2.Division of Endocrinology, Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, MD;3.Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD;4.Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA |
| |
| Abstract: | OBJECTIVEAdvances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have transformed ambulatory diabetes management. Until recently, inpatient use of CGM has remained investigational, with limited data on its accuracy in the hospital setting.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSTo analyze the accuracy of Dexcom G6, we compared retrospective matched-pair CGM and capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose data from three inpatient CGM studies (two interventional and one observational) in general medicine and surgery patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Analysis of accuracy metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD), median absolute relative difference (ARD), and proportion of CGM values within 15, 20, and 30% or 15, 20, and 30 mg/dL of POC reference values for blood glucose >100 mg/dL or ≤100 mg/dL, respectively (% 15/15, % 20/20, % 30/30). Clinical reliability was assessed with Clarke error grid (CEG) analyses.RESULTSA total of 218 patients were included (96% with type 2 diabetes) with a mean age of 60.6 ± 12 years. The overall MARD (n = 4,067 matched glucose pairs) was 12.8%, and median ARD was 10.1% (interquartile range 4.6, 17.6]. The proportions of readings meeting % 15/15, % 20/20, and % 30/30 criteria were 68.7, 81.7, and 93.8%, respectively. CEG analysis showed 98.7% of all values in zones A and B. MARD and median ARD were higher in the case of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and severe anemia (hemoglobin <7 g/dL).CONCLUSIONSOur results indicate that CGM technology is a reliable tool for hospital use and may help improve glucose monitoring in non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
