Christian G. Nielsen, Milda Grigonyte-Daraskeviciene, Mikkel T. Olsen, Morten H. Møller, Kirsten Nørgaard, Anders Perner, Johan Mårtensson, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Peter L. Kristensen, Morten H. Bestle
{"title":"重症监护室患者持续葡萄糖监测系统的准确性:范围界定综述","authors":"Christian G. Nielsen, Milda Grigonyte-Daraskeviciene, Mikkel T. Olsen, Morten H. Møller, Kirsten Nørgaard, Anders Perner, Johan Mårtensson, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Peter L. Kristensen, Morten H. Bestle","doi":"10.1007/s00134-024-07663-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Glycemic control poses a challenge in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and dysglycemia is associated with poor outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been successfully implemented in the type 1 diabetes out-patient setting and renewed interest has been directed into the transition of CGM into the ICU. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of CGM accuracy in ICU patients to inform future research and CGM implementation.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE between 5th of December 2023 and 21st of May 2024 and reported findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We assessed studies reporting the accuracy of CGM in the ICU and report study characteristics and accuracy outcomes.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>We identified 2133 studies, of which 96 were included. Most studies were observational (91.7%), conducted in adult patients (74%), in mixed ICUs (47.9%), from 2014 and onward, and assessed subcutaneous CGM systems (80%) using arterial blood samples as reference test (40.6%). Half of the studies (56.3%) mention the use of a prespecified reference test protocol. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) ranged from 6.6 to 30.5% for all subcutaneous CGM studies. For newer factory calibrated CGM, MARD ranged from 9.7 to 20.6%. MARD for intravenous CGM was 5–14.2% and 6.4–13% for intraarterial CGM.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>In this scoping review of CGM accuracy in the ICU, we found great diversity in accuracy reporting. Accuracy varied depending on CGM and comparator, and may be better for intravascular CGM and potentially lower during hypoglycemia.</p>","PeriodicalId":13665,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":27.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Christian G. Nielsen, Milda Grigonyte-Daraskeviciene, Mikkel T. Olsen, Morten H. Møller, Kirsten Nørgaard, Anders Perner, Johan Mårtensson, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Peter L. Kristensen, Morten H. Bestle\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00134-024-07663-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>Glycemic control poses a challenge in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and dysglycemia is associated with poor outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been successfully implemented in the type 1 diabetes out-patient setting and renewed interest has been directed into the transition of CGM into the ICU. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of CGM accuracy in ICU patients to inform future research and CGM implementation.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE between 5th of December 2023 and 21st of May 2024 and reported findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We assessed studies reporting the accuracy of CGM in the ICU and report study characteristics and accuracy outcomes.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>We identified 2133 studies, of which 96 were included. Most studies were observational (91.7%), conducted in adult patients (74%), in mixed ICUs (47.9%), from 2014 and onward, and assessed subcutaneous CGM systems (80%) using arterial blood samples as reference test (40.6%). Half of the studies (56.3%) mention the use of a prespecified reference test protocol. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) ranged from 6.6 to 30.5% for all subcutaneous CGM studies. For newer factory calibrated CGM, MARD ranged from 9.7 to 20.6%. MARD for intravenous CGM was 5–14.2% and 6.4–13% for intraarterial CGM.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>In this scoping review of CGM accuracy in the ICU, we found great diversity in accuracy reporting. Accuracy varied depending on CGM and comparator, and may be better for intravascular CGM and potentially lower during hypoglycemia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":27.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-024-07663-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-024-07663-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review
Purpose
Glycemic control poses a challenge in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and dysglycemia is associated with poor outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been successfully implemented in the type 1 diabetes out-patient setting and renewed interest has been directed into the transition of CGM into the ICU. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of CGM accuracy in ICU patients to inform future research and CGM implementation.
Methods
We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE between 5th of December 2023 and 21st of May 2024 and reported findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We assessed studies reporting the accuracy of CGM in the ICU and report study characteristics and accuracy outcomes.
Results
We identified 2133 studies, of which 96 were included. Most studies were observational (91.7%), conducted in adult patients (74%), in mixed ICUs (47.9%), from 2014 and onward, and assessed subcutaneous CGM systems (80%) using arterial blood samples as reference test (40.6%). Half of the studies (56.3%) mention the use of a prespecified reference test protocol. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) ranged from 6.6 to 30.5% for all subcutaneous CGM studies. For newer factory calibrated CGM, MARD ranged from 9.7 to 20.6%. MARD for intravenous CGM was 5–14.2% and 6.4–13% for intraarterial CGM.
Conclusions
In this scoping review of CGM accuracy in the ICU, we found great diversity in accuracy reporting. Accuracy varied depending on CGM and comparator, and may be better for intravascular CGM and potentially lower during hypoglycemia.
期刊介绍:
Intensive Care Medicine is the premier publication platform fostering the communication and exchange of cutting-edge research and ideas within the field of intensive care medicine on a comprehensive scale. Catering to professionals involved in intensive medical care, including intensivists, medical specialists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, ICM stands as the official journal of The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. ICM is dedicated to advancing the understanding and practice of intensive care medicine among professionals in Europe and beyond. The journal provides a robust platform for disseminating current research findings and innovative ideas in intensive care medicine. Content published in Intensive Care Medicine encompasses a wide range, including review articles, original research papers, letters, reviews, debates, and more.