两种连续血糖监测设备在 1 型糖尿病患者进行有氧和高强度间歇训练期间的准确性。

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Alba Cuerda Del Pino, Rodrigo Martín-San Agustín, Alejandro José Laguna Sanz, José-Luis Díez, Ana Palanca, Paolo Rossetti, Maria Gumbau-Gimenez, F Javier Ampudia-Blasco, Jorge Bondia
{"title":"两种连续血糖监测设备在 1 型糖尿病患者进行有氧和高强度间歇训练期间的准确性。","authors":"Alba Cuerda Del Pino, Rodrigo Martín-San Agustín, Alejandro José Laguna Sanz, José-Luis Díez, Ana Palanca, Paolo Rossetti, Maria Gumbau-Gimenez, F Javier Ampudia-Blasco, Jorge Bondia","doi":"10.1089/dia.2023.0535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of Dexcom G6 (DG6) and FreeStyle Libre-2 (FSL2) during aerobic training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in individuals with type 1 diabetes. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty-six males (mean age 29.3 ± 6.3 years and mean duration of diabetes 14.9 ± 6.1 years) participated in this study. Interstitial glucose levels were measured using DG6 and FSL2, while plasma glucose levels were measured every 10 min using YSI 2500 as the reference for glucose measurements in this study. The measurements began 20 min before the start of exercise and continued for 20 min after exercise. Seven measurements were taken for each subject and exercise. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Both DG6 and FSL2 devices showed significant differences compared to YSI glucose data for both aerobic and HIIT exercises. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices exhibited superior performance during HIIT than aerobic training, with DG6 showing a mean absolute relative difference of 14.03% versus 31.98%, respectively. In the comparison between the two devices, FSL2 demonstrated significantly higher effectiveness in aerobic training, yet its performance was inferior to DG6 during HIIT. According to the 40/40 criteria, both sensors performed similarly, with marks over 93% for all ranges and both exercises, and above 99% for HIIT and in the >180 mg/dL range, which is in accordance with FDA guidelines. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The findings suggest that the accuracy of DG6 and FSL2 deteriorates during and immediately after exercise but remains acceptable for both devices during HIIT. However, accuracy is compromised with DG6 during aerobic exercise. This study is the first to compare the accuracy of two CGMs, DG6, and FSL2, during two exercise modalities, using plasma glucose YSI measurements as the gold standard for comparisons. It was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06080542).</p>","PeriodicalId":11159,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Two Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices During Aerobic and High-Intensity Interval Training in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Alba Cuerda Del Pino, Rodrigo Martín-San Agustín, Alejandro José Laguna Sanz, José-Luis Díez, Ana Palanca, Paolo Rossetti, Maria Gumbau-Gimenez, F Javier Ampudia-Blasco, Jorge Bondia\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/dia.2023.0535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of Dexcom G6 (DG6) and FreeStyle Libre-2 (FSL2) during aerobic training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in individuals with type 1 diabetes. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty-six males (mean age 29.3 ± 6.3 years and mean duration of diabetes 14.9 ± 6.1 years) participated in this study. Interstitial glucose levels were measured using DG6 and FSL2, while plasma glucose levels were measured every 10 min using YSI 2500 as the reference for glucose measurements in this study. The measurements began 20 min before the start of exercise and continued for 20 min after exercise. Seven measurements were taken for each subject and exercise. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Both DG6 and FSL2 devices showed significant differences compared to YSI glucose data for both aerobic and HIIT exercises. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices exhibited superior performance during HIIT than aerobic training, with DG6 showing a mean absolute relative difference of 14.03% versus 31.98%, respectively. In the comparison between the two devices, FSL2 demonstrated significantly higher effectiveness in aerobic training, yet its performance was inferior to DG6 during HIIT. According to the 40/40 criteria, both sensors performed similarly, with marks over 93% for all ranges and both exercises, and above 99% for HIIT and in the >180 mg/dL range, which is in accordance with FDA guidelines. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The findings suggest that the accuracy of DG6 and FSL2 deteriorates during and immediately after exercise but remains acceptable for both devices during HIIT. However, accuracy is compromised with DG6 during aerobic exercise. This study is the first to compare the accuracy of two CGMs, DG6, and FSL2, during two exercise modalities, using plasma glucose YSI measurements as the gold standard for comparisons. It was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06080542).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0535\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0535","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在评估 Dexcom G6(DG6)和 FreeStyle Libre-2(FSL2)在 1 型糖尿病(T1D)患者进行有氧训练和 HIIT 时的准确性:26 名男性(平均年龄为 29.3 ± 6.3 岁,平均糖尿病病程为 14.9 ± 6.1 年)参加了此次研究。使用 DG6 和 FSL2 测量间质葡萄糖水平,而血浆葡萄糖水平则使用 YSI 2500 每 10 分钟测量一次。测量从运动开始前 20 分钟开始,持续到运动结束后 20 分钟。每个受试者和每项运动都进行了七次测量:结果:在有氧运动和 HIIT 运动中,DG6 和 FSL2 设备与 YSI 葡萄糖数据相比均有显著差异。连续血糖监测(CGM)设备在 HIIT 训练中的表现优于有氧训练,DG6 的平均绝对相对差值(MARD)分别为 14.03% 和 31.98%。在两种设备的比较中,FSL2 在有氧训练中的效果明显更高,但在 HIIT 中的表现却不如 DG6。根据 40/40 标准,两种传感器的表现相似,在所有范围和两种训练中的得分都超过了 93%,在 HIIT 和 >180 mg/dL 范围内的得分超过了 99%,这符合美国食品药品管理局的指导方针:研究结果表明,DG6 和 FSL2 的准确度在运动中和运动后会下降,但在 HIIT 运动中这两种设备的准确度仍可接受。但在有氧运动时,DG6 的准确性会受到影响。这项研究首次使用血浆葡萄糖 YSI 测量值作为比较的金标准,比较了 DG6 和 FSL2 这两种 CGM 在两种运动模式下的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Two Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices During Aerobic and High-Intensity Interval Training in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of Dexcom G6 (DG6) and FreeStyle Libre-2 (FSL2) during aerobic training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in individuals with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Twenty-six males (mean age 29.3 ± 6.3 years and mean duration of diabetes 14.9 ± 6.1 years) participated in this study. Interstitial glucose levels were measured using DG6 and FSL2, while plasma glucose levels were measured every 10 min using YSI 2500 as the reference for glucose measurements in this study. The measurements began 20 min before the start of exercise and continued for 20 min after exercise. Seven measurements were taken for each subject and exercise. Results: Both DG6 and FSL2 devices showed significant differences compared to YSI glucose data for both aerobic and HIIT exercises. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices exhibited superior performance during HIIT than aerobic training, with DG6 showing a mean absolute relative difference of 14.03% versus 31.98%, respectively. In the comparison between the two devices, FSL2 demonstrated significantly higher effectiveness in aerobic training, yet its performance was inferior to DG6 during HIIT. According to the 40/40 criteria, both sensors performed similarly, with marks over 93% for all ranges and both exercises, and above 99% for HIIT and in the >180 mg/dL range, which is in accordance with FDA guidelines. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the accuracy of DG6 and FSL2 deteriorates during and immediately after exercise but remains acceptable for both devices during HIIT. However, accuracy is compromised with DG6 during aerobic exercise. This study is the first to compare the accuracy of two CGMs, DG6, and FSL2, during two exercise modalities, using plasma glucose YSI measurements as the gold standard for comparisons. It was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06080542).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetes technology & therapeutics
Diabetes technology & therapeutics 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
14.80%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics is the only peer-reviewed journal providing healthcare professionals with information on new devices, drugs, drug delivery systems, and software for managing patients with diabetes. This leading international journal delivers practical information and comprehensive coverage of cutting-edge technologies and therapeutics in the field, and each issue highlights new pharmacological and device developments to optimize patient care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信