4.7 Article

Glucose Levels at the Site of Subcutaneous Insulin Administration and Their Relationship to Plasma Levels

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 833-838

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc09-1531

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Park Graz
  2. Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor of the Republic of Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To examine insulin's effect on the tissue glucose concentration at the site of subcutaneous insulin administration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A CMA-60 microdialysis (MD) catheter and a 24-gauge microperfusion (MP) catheter were inserted into the subcutaneous adipose tissue of fasting, healthy subjects (n = 5). Both catheters were perfused with regular human insulin (100 units/ml) over a 6-h period and used for glucose sampling and simultaneous administration of insulin at sequential rates of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.00 units/h (each rate was used for 2 h). Before and after the insulin delivery period, both catheters were perfused with an insulin-free solution (5% mannitol) for 2 h and used for glucose sampling only. Blood plasma glucose was clamped at euglycemic levels during insulin delivery. RESULTS - Start of insulin delivery with MD and MP catheters resulted in a decline of the tissue glucose concentration and the tissue-to-plasma glucose ratio (TPR) for similar to 60 min (P < 0.05). However, during the rest of the 6-h period of variable insulin delivery, tissue glucose concentration paralleled the plasma glucose concentration, and the TPR for MD and MP catheters remained unchanged at 83.2 +/- 3.1 and 77.1 +/- 4.8%, respectively. After subsequent switch to insulin-free perfusate, tissue glucose concentration and TPR increased slowly and reattained preinsulin delivery levels by the end of the experiments. CONCLUSIONS - The results show the attainment of a stable TPR value at the site of insulin administration, thus indicating that insulin delivery and glucose sensing may be performed simultaneously at the same adipose tissue site.

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