1 型糖尿病患者的连续血糖监测和休闲潜水:Free Style Libre 3 和 Dexcom G7 性能的正面比较。

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Diabetes technology & therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1089/dia.2024.0126
Elena Gamarra, Giovanni Careddu, Andrea Fazi, Valentina Turra, Ambra Morelli, Chiara Camponovo, Pierpaolo Trimboli
{"title":"1 型糖尿病患者的连续血糖监测和休闲潜水:Free Style Libre 3 和 Dexcom G7 性能的正面比较。","authors":"Elena Gamarra, Giovanni Careddu, Andrea Fazi, Valentina Turra, Ambra Morelli, Chiara Camponovo, Pierpaolo Trimboli","doi":"10.1089/dia.2024.0126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Scuba diving was previously excluded because of hypoglycemic risks for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus(T1DM). Specific eligibility criteria and a safety protocol have been defined, whereas continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have enhanced diabetes management. This study aims to assess the feasibility and accuracy of CGM Dexcom G7 and Free Style Libre 3 in a setting of repetitive scuba diving in T1DM, exploring the possibility of nonadjunctive use. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> The study was conducted during an event of <i>Diabete Sommerso<sup>®</sup></i> association in 2023. Participants followed a safety protocol, with capillary glucose as reference standard (Beurer GL50Evo). Sensors' accuracy was evaluated through median and mean absolute relative difference (MeARD, MARD) and surveillance error grid (SEG). Data distribution and correlation were estimated by Spearman test and Bland-Altman plots. The ability of sensors to identify hypoglycemia was assessed by contingency tables. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Data from 202 dives of 13 patients were collected. The overall MARD was 31% (Dexcom G7) and 14.2% (Free Style Libre 3) and MeARD was 19.7% and 11.6%, respectively. Free Style Libre 3 exhibited better accuracy in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges. SEG analysis showed 82.1% (Dexcom G7) and 97.4% (Free Style Libre 3) data on no-risk zone. Free Style Libre 3 better performed on hypoglycemia identification (diagnostic odds ratio of 254.10 vs. 58.95). Neither of the sensors reached the MARD for nonadjunctive use. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The study reveals Free Style Libre 3 superior accuracy compared with Dexcom G7 in a setting of repetitive scuba diving in T1DM, except for hypoglycemic range. Both sensors fail to achieve accuracy for nonadjunctive use. Capillary tests remain crucial for safe dive planning, and sensor data should be interpreted cautiously. We suggest exploring additional factors potentially influencing sensor performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":11159,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"829-841"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Recreational Scuba Diving in Type 1 Diabetes: Head-to-Head Comparison Between Free Style Libre 3 and Dexcom G7 Performance.\",\"authors\":\"Elena Gamarra, Giovanni Careddu, Andrea Fazi, Valentina Turra, Ambra Morelli, Chiara Camponovo, Pierpaolo Trimboli\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/dia.2024.0126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Scuba diving was previously excluded because of hypoglycemic risks for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus(T1DM). Specific eligibility criteria and a safety protocol have been defined, whereas continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have enhanced diabetes management. This study aims to assess the feasibility and accuracy of CGM Dexcom G7 and Free Style Libre 3 in a setting of repetitive scuba diving in T1DM, exploring the possibility of nonadjunctive use. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> The study was conducted during an event of <i>Diabete Sommerso<sup>®</sup></i> association in 2023. Participants followed a safety protocol, with capillary glucose as reference standard (Beurer GL50Evo). Sensors' accuracy was evaluated through median and mean absolute relative difference (MeARD, MARD) and surveillance error grid (SEG). Data distribution and correlation were estimated by Spearman test and Bland-Altman plots. The ability of sensors to identify hypoglycemia was assessed by contingency tables. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Data from 202 dives of 13 patients were collected. The overall MARD was 31% (Dexcom G7) and 14.2% (Free Style Libre 3) and MeARD was 19.7% and 11.6%, respectively. Free Style Libre 3 exhibited better accuracy in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges. SEG analysis showed 82.1% (Dexcom G7) and 97.4% (Free Style Libre 3) data on no-risk zone. Free Style Libre 3 better performed on hypoglycemia identification (diagnostic odds ratio of 254.10 vs. 58.95). Neither of the sensors reached the MARD for nonadjunctive use. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The study reveals Free Style Libre 3 superior accuracy compared with Dexcom G7 in a setting of repetitive scuba diving in T1DM, except for hypoglycemic range. Both sensors fail to achieve accuracy for nonadjunctive use. Capillary tests remain crucial for safe dive planning, and sensor data should be interpreted cautiously. We suggest exploring additional factors potentially influencing sensor performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"829-841\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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.2024.0126\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"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.2024.0126","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 以前,由于 1 型糖尿病患者(T1DM)有低血糖风险,水肺潜水被排除在外。在连续血糖监测(CGM)系统加强了糖尿病管理的同时,具体的资格标准和安全协议也已确定。本研究旨在评估 CGM Dexcom G7 (DG7) 和 Free Style Libre 3 (FSL3) 在 T1DM 患者重复潜水环境中的可行性和准确性,探索非联合使用的可能性。材料与方法 该研究是在 2023 年 11 月 Diabete Sommerso® 协会的一次活动中进行的。参与者遵循安全协议,以毛细血管葡萄糖为参考标准(Beurer GL50Evo)。传感器的准确性通过中位数和平均绝对相对差值(MeARD 和 MARD)以及监测误差网格(SEG)分析进行评估。按血糖范围、时间和性别进行了子分析。数据分布和相关性通过斯皮尔曼检验和布兰德-阿尔特曼图进行估算。传感器识别低血糖的能力通过或然率表进行评估。参与者填写了满意度问卷。结果 收集了 13 名患者 202 次潜水的数据。DG7 和 FSL3 的总体 MARD 分别为 31% 和 14.2%,MeARD 分别为 19.7% 和 11.6%。FSL3 在血糖正常和血糖过高范围内的准确度更高。SEG 分析显示,82.1%(DG7)和 97.4%(FSL3)的数据在无风险区。FSL3 在低血糖识别方面表现更好(诊断几率比为 254.10 对 58.95)。两款传感器在非辅助使用方面均未达到 MARD 标准。患者满意度方面,FSL3 因其尺寸小、体积小而受到青睐,而 DG7 则因其多功能性而获得好评。结论 该研究显示,在 T1DM 患者反复潜水的情况下,FSL3 的准确性优于 DG7,但低血糖范围除外。这两种传感器在非辅助使用时都无法达到准确性。毛细血管测试仍然是安全潜水计划的关键,因此应谨慎解读传感器数据。我们建议探索可能影响传感器性能的其他因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Recreational Scuba Diving in Type 1 Diabetes: Head-to-Head Comparison Between Free Style Libre 3 and Dexcom G7 Performance.

Background: Scuba diving was previously excluded because of hypoglycemic risks for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus(T1DM). Specific eligibility criteria and a safety protocol have been defined, whereas continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have enhanced diabetes management. This study aims to assess the feasibility and accuracy of CGM Dexcom G7 and Free Style Libre 3 in a setting of repetitive scuba diving in T1DM, exploring the possibility of nonadjunctive use. Material and Methods: The study was conducted during an event of Diabete Sommerso® association in 2023. Participants followed a safety protocol, with capillary glucose as reference standard (Beurer GL50Evo). Sensors' accuracy was evaluated through median and mean absolute relative difference (MeARD, MARD) and surveillance error grid (SEG). Data distribution and correlation were estimated by Spearman test and Bland-Altman plots. The ability of sensors to identify hypoglycemia was assessed by contingency tables. Results: Data from 202 dives of 13 patients were collected. The overall MARD was 31% (Dexcom G7) and 14.2% (Free Style Libre 3) and MeARD was 19.7% and 11.6%, respectively. Free Style Libre 3 exhibited better accuracy in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges. SEG analysis showed 82.1% (Dexcom G7) and 97.4% (Free Style Libre 3) data on no-risk zone. Free Style Libre 3 better performed on hypoglycemia identification (diagnostic odds ratio of 254.10 vs. 58.95). Neither of the sensors reached the MARD for nonadjunctive use. Conclusions: The study reveals Free Style Libre 3 superior accuracy compared with Dexcom G7 in a setting of repetitive scuba diving in T1DM, except for hypoglycemic range. Both sensors fail to achieve accuracy for nonadjunctive use. Capillary tests remain crucial for safe dive planning, and sensor data should be interpreted cautiously. We suggest exploring additional factors potentially influencing sensor performance.

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