4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A pilot study of the continuous glucose monitoring system - Clinical decisions and glycemic control after its use in pediatric type 1 diabetic subjects

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 2030-2034

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.12.2030

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To determine whether the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) (MiniMed, Sylmar, CA) could be used to make clinical decisions and whether it has an impact on glycemia in pediatric type I diabetic subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Pediatric subjects were recruited if they had HbA(1c) >8.0% with management problems (n = 35) or episodes of severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia or hypoglycemia unawareness associated with HbA(1c) less than or equal to8.0% (n = 12). A total of 47 patients with a mean HbA(1c) value of 8.6 +/- 1.6% (mean age 11.8 +/- 4.6 years, youngest 2.7 years, and diabetes duration 5.5 +/- 3.5 years) on three to four insulin injections/day (n = 24) or insulin pump therapy (n = 23) were followed with the CGMS for a mean of 69.5 +/- 28 h. Comparisons were made between the number of high (>150 mg/dl) and low (<70 mg/dl) glucose patterns discerned with the sensor or the logbook, and HbA(1c) levels were evaluated. RESULTS - In patients on injection therapy, 30 high or low glucose patterns were discerned with the logbook records and 120 patterns with the CGMS. Specific alterations of the diabetes regimen were made. An overall significant change in HbA(1c), from 3 months before wearing the sensor to 6 months after (analysis of variance 0.04), was found in the subjects. Post hoc analysis showed a significant change in HbA(1c) from 8.6 +/- 1.5% at baseline to 8.4 +/- 1.3% at 3 months (paired Student's t test 0.03). CONCLUSIONS - The CGMS can be used by pediatric patients to detect abnormal patterns of glycemia. The information that was obtained could be used to alter the diabetes regimen and impact glycemic outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据