Improved Glucose Excursions Using an Implantable Real-Time Continuous Glucose Sensor in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

Emerging Treatments and Technologies

¹Department of Medicine and Pediatrics, Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado
²Diabetes & Glandular Disease Research Associates, San Antonio, Texas
³Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Satish K. Garg, MD, Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 East 9th Ave., Campus Box B-140, Denver, CO 80262. E-mail: satish.garg{at}uchsc.edu

Diabetes Care 2004 Mar; 27(3): 734-738. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.27.3.734

Article Figures & Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1—
A: Implantable glucose sensor the size of a AA battery. B: The receiver—a pager-like device.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2—
Comparison of time spent (per day) in various glucose ranges during period B (▪) vs. period C (□). *47% decrease in time spent below 3.1 mmol/l. †25% less time spent per day in the hyperglycemic zone (>13.4 mmol/l).

Table 1—

Demographics

Table 2—
Bias*
Glucose value (SMBG) (mmol/l) 2.8 4.4 5.6 8.3 11.1
Bias end point requirement (mmol/l) <0.80 <0.80 <0.84 <1.24 <1.66
Sensor results (mmol/l) 0.32 0.14 0.23 0.27 0.58
*
↵* Null hypothesis was rejected using Deming linear regression.
Table 3—
Accuracy of sensor when calibrated and compared using SMBG and YSI
Calibration and comparison Clarke A & B Clarke C Clarke D & E R MARD
SMBG* (n = 13) 96% 0% 4% 0.88 16%
YSI† (n = 12) 97% 0% 3% 0.82 25%
*
↵* Two devices did not function appropriately during the 12-h SHU study.
†
↵† In addition, laboratory YSI glucose measurements from one patient during the SHU study were not available because the blood samples were lost.