Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Methods: We performed a prospective, single-center study in patients with known diagnosis of diabetes or stress hyperglycemia and treated with insulin. Two Dexcom G7 sensors were placed on the abdomen and/or upper arm. Blood glucose (BG) measurements obtained according to usual ICU care were paired with sensor glucose values, and accuracy metrics were analyzed. For further comparison, non-ICU patients were also studied. Results: The analyses included 30 participants with mean ± standard deviation age of 55 ± 12 years, with preexisting diabetes in 40% and stress hyperglycemia in 60%. A total of 1515 sensor-BG pairs were analyzed. The mean difference (bias) was -12 mg/dL (median: -6), and the mean relative absolute difference (RAD) was 16% (median: 12%). Mean RAD was 13% (median: 9%) using plasma glucose as the reference and 17% (median: 13%) using capillary glucose. For comparison, in 35 adults with type 2 diabetes in a non-ICU setting, the mean RAD was 15% (median: 13%). No meaningful differences were observed across the duration of time since sensor insertion. No correlation was found between mean RAD and severity of illness. Conclusions: Mean RAD of the Dexcom G7 sensor in the ICU setting was slightly higher than the outpatient use labeling, but was similar to a non-ICU hospital setting. Further studies are needed to determine whether CGM can be used nonadjunctively in an ICU setting for insulin management, including use of glucose trends and alarms for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia.

To evaluate the accuracy of a blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device compared with point-of-care testing (POCT) and serum glucose measurements in the immediate postoperative period among kidney transplant recipients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

In this prospective study, we enrolled 22 participants aged ≥18 years, with type 2 DM, immediately after kidney transplant. We applied a blinded CGM device that sampled interstitial glucose every 15 minutes and collected POCT and serum glucose values. Using matched pairs of glucose readings between CGM and POCT and between CGM and serum glucose, we calculated bias and absolute relative difference and conducted a Clarke Error Grid Analysis.

Eighty-two percent of the participants were male, with a mean age of 58 ± 9.69 years, mean body mass index of 30 ± 6.41 kg/m2, and baseline mean A1C level of 6.7 ± 1.07%. The mean durations of type 2 DM and end-stage kidney disease were 19 ± 10.6 and 3 ± 2.27 years, respectively. There were 327 and 72 matched pairs of CGM/POCT and CGM/serum glucose data, respectively. Clarke Error Grid Analysis comparing CGM/POCT showed 83.79% of values in zone A and 15.29% in zone B (combined 99.08%), with a mean absolute relative difference of 13.24%. For CGM/serum glucose, values of 83.1% were in zone A, and values of 16.9% were in zone B (combined 100%), with a mean absolute relative difference of 13.10%.

CGM provided accurate blood glucose measurements compared with POCT and serum glucose values in patients with type 2 DM after kidney transplant. When used in this patient population, CGM devices have the potential to improve clinical outcomes through earlier detection and intervention for glycemic excursions.

Hyperglycaemia is common in intensive care units (ICUs), with a prevalence of up to 86.2%, increasing mortality. Technology has evolved towards continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and its use in ICUs began especially during the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Various studies have evaluated the reliability of CGM, indicating that it is safe for use in critically ill patients.

The aim of this study was to compare the use of CGM with point-of-care glucose (POC-G) testing in ICU. Specific objectives include evaluating the glycaemic control, the frequency of POC-G measurements, the incidence of hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia and morbidity and mortality at 90 days.

An experimental, controlled and randomized clinical trial with a single-blind design will be conducted at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (HCB). A sample size of 376 participants will be recruited and randomly assigned to two groups: an experimental group, where glycaemic management will be based on CGM; and a control group, where glucose will be managed through POC-G testing, with a blinded CGM.

The primary variable considered will be time in range (TIR), with secondary outcomes including, time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR), number of POC-G measurements, incidence of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, and mortality. Hypothesis testing will use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess data normality, with appropriate statistical tests applied, considering a p-value <.05.

The results obtained will help us understand the impact of CGM on critically ill patients. CGM could potentially reduce the workload of nurses and improve the efficiency of decision-making by the ICU team, enabling early identification and treatment of glucose complications, thereby enhancing safety. Patient safety, a reduction in patient fingerstick and a decreased care burden are the criteria that add value to this research.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are increasingly used in critical and non-critical care hospital units. The efficacy of CGM in assessing glucose control in adults with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is unknown.

This single-center pilot study compared glycemic control by real-time CGM (Dexcom G6), capillary point-of-care (POC), and basic metabolic panel (BMP) during intravenous (IV) insulin treatment and after the resolution of DKA. We compared the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), median absolute relative difference (ARD) glucose values, and Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) Error Grid analyses.

We recruited 52 patients (49 ± 19 years, admission glucose: 503 ± 239.4 mg/dL) with type 1 diabetes (n = 24) and type 2 diabetes (n = 28). Compared with POC testing, the MARD was 17.4% ± 13.2%, and the median ARD was 14.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4, 28) during the initial IV insulin period and 19.8% ± 18.7% and 14.3% (7, 26.2) after DKA resolution. The DTS Error Grid analysis showed that 100% of values during the IV insulin treatment and 95% after the DKA resolution were in zones A+B. Compared with BMP glucose values, the MARD and median ARD were 18.5% ± 19.1% and 12.2% (5.4, 23.8) during the IV insulin treatment and 22.5% ± 24.7% and 15.1% (6.6, 27.6) after DKA resolution.

This is the first report on the use of real-time CGM in adults with DKA. Our study indicates that CGM technology is a reliable tool for hospital use during acute insulin treatment and after the resolution of DKA. Future multicentre randomized studies are needed to determine the benefits of real-time CGM in facilitating diabetes care in hospitalized patients with hyperglycemic crises.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems provide frequent glucose measurements in interstitial fluid and have been used widely in ambulatory settings for diabetes management. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, regulators in the U.S. and Canada temporarily allowed for CGM systems to be used in hospitals with the aim of reducing health care professional COVID-19 exposure and limiting use of personal protective equipment. As such, studies on hospital CGM system use have been possible. With improved sensor accuracy, there is increased interest in CGM usage for diabetes management in hospitals. Laboratorians and health care professionals must determine how to integrate CGM usage into practice. The aim of this consensus guidance document is to provide an update on the application of CGM systems in hospital, with insights and opinions from laboratory medicine, endocrinology, and nursing.

During intensive hematologic care, patients are exposed to high-dose chemotherapy, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and total parenteral nutrition. Combined with physiologic stress and increased release of cytokines and hormones, this can lead to dysglycemia, which is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. This prospective study aimed to investigate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to identify dysglycemia during intensive hematologic care.

Patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy or allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplantation were eligible. Throughout the study, glucose levels were concurrently monitored using CGM and point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements in 60 patients (71% male, median age of 64 [interquartile range, 58-68] years, and 10% with diabetes).

Hyperglycemia (glucose level, >10 mmol/L) was prevalent in 93% of patients, of whom 90% had no history of diabetes. Severe hyperglycemia (glucose level, >13.1 mmol/L) was present in 38%. Additionally, hyperglycemia was associated with prolonged hospitalization in patients undergoing chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment (β, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.35) and autologous stem cell transplantation (β, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01-0.32). CGM outperformed POC in detecting hyperglycemia (>10 mmol/L: 1060 vs 124, detected 2.8 [interquartile range, 0.7-4.0]) hours earlier. The mean absolute relative difference between CGM and POC was 21.5%, with 99.8% of measurements in the clinical acceptable zone A + B of the Clarke error grid.

These findings emphasize the potential and importance of glucose monitoring with CGM for improved and earlier detection of hyperglycemia, in this patient population, which seems feasible. Our results suggest a need for further studies into CGM as method to optimize glucose levels, which could improve outcomes in patients receiving intensive hematologic care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background and Aims: Guidelines now recommend inpatient continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use with confirmatory blood glucose measurements. However, the Food and Drug Administration has not yet officially approved CGM for inpatient use in large part because its accuracy has not been established in this setting. We tested the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 (G6) in 28 adults on an insulin infusion in a medical-surgical intensive care unit with 1064 matched CGM and arterial point-of-care pairs. Methods: The participants were on average 57.29 (SD 2.39) years, of whom 13 had a prior diagnosis of diabetes and 14 were admitted for a surgical diagnosis. The first 19 participants received the G6 without calibration and had a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 13.19% (IQR 5.11, 19.03) across 659 matched pairs, which just meets the critical care expert recommendation of MARD <14%. We then aimed to improve accuracy for the subsequent 9 participants using a calibration protocol. Results: The MARD for calibrated participants was 9.65% (3.03, 13.33), significantly lower than for uncalibrated participants (P < 0.001). Calibration also demonstrated excellent safety with 100% of values within the Clarke Error Grid zones A and B compared with 99.07% without calibration. Our protocol achieved the lowest MARD and safest CEG profile in the critical care setting and well exceeds the critical care expert recommendations. Our large sample of heterogenous critically ill patients also reached comparable accuracy to the MARD of 9% for G6 in outpatients. We believe our calibration protocol will allow G6 to be used with sufficient accuracy in inpatients.

Background: Subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may facilitate glucose control in the ICU. We aimed to assess the accuracy of CGM (Dexcom G6) against arterial blood glucose (ABG) in adult critically ill patients receiving intravenous insulin infusion and vasopressor therapy. We also aimed to assess feasibility and tolerability of CGM in this setting. Methods: We included ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation, insulin, and vasopressor therapy. Numerical accuracy was assessed by the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), overall, across arterial glucose strata, over different noradrenaline equivalent infusion rates, and over time since CGM start. MARD <14% was considered acceptable. Clinical accuracy was assessed using Clarke Error Grid (CEG) analysis. Feasibility outcome included number and duration of interrupted sensor readings due to signal loss. Tolerability outcome included skin reactions related to sensor insertion or sensor adhesives. Results: We obtained 2946 paired samples from 40 patients (18 with type 2 diabetes) receiving a median (IQR) maximum noradrenaline equivalent infusion rate of 0.18 (0.08-0.33) µg/kg/min during CGM. Overall, MARD was 12.7% (95% CI 10.7-15.3), and 99.8% of CGM readings were within CEG zones A and B. MARD values ≥14% were observed when ABG was outside target range (6-10 mmol/L [108-180 mg/dL]) and with noradrenaline equivalent infusion rates above 0.10 µg/kg/min. Accuracy improved with time after CGM start, reaching MARD values <14% after 36 h. We observed four episodes of interrupted sensor readings due to signal loss, ranging from 5 to 20 min. We observed no skin reaction related to sensor insertion or sensor adhesives. Conclusions: In our ICU cohort of patients receiving vasopressor infusion, subcutaneous CGM demonstrated acceptable overall numerical and clinical accuracy. However, suboptimal accuracy may occur outside glucose ranges of 6-10 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), during higher dose vasopressor infusion, and during the first 36 h after CGM start.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are a rapidly growing component in the area of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. As more patients use these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to assess safety if their use is allowed to continue in the inpatient setting.

Analysis was conducted of the records of patients using AID technology upon admission to our hospital between June 2020 and December 2022. Adverse events and glycemic control of AID users were compared with patients using non-AID systems and with patients who had CSII discontinued.

There were 185 patients analyzed: 64 on AID, 86 on non-AID, and 35 who had CSII discontinued. The number of patients on AID increased over the course of the observation period, whereas non-AID users decreased. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels and percentage of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups, but the percentage of patient hyperglycemic measurements was significantly lower in the AID cohort. No adverse events (diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications, equipment malfunction) were reported in any either CSII cohort.

The type of CSII technology encountered in the hospital is shifting from non-AID toward AID technologies. This analysis supports earlier findings that outpatient AID systems can be successfully transitioned into the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to define if AID systems offer any advantage in glycemic control.

There have been many developments in diabetes technology in recent years, with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pump therapy (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) becoming progressively accepted in outpatient diabetes care. However, the use of such advanced diabetes technology in the inpatient setting is still limited for several reasons, including logistical challenges and staff training needs. On the other hand, hospital settings with altered diet and stress-induced hyperglycemia often pose challenges to tight glycemic control using conventional treatment tools. Integrating smarter glucose monitoring and insulin delivery devices into the increasingly technical hospital environment could reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. This narrative review describes the most recent literature on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital and suggests avenues for further research.

Advanced diabetes technology has the potential to improve glycemic control in hospitalized people with and without diabetes, and could add particular value in certain conditions, such as nutrition therapy or perioperative management. Taken together, CGM allows for more accurate and patient-friendly follow-up and ad hoc titration of therapy. AID may also provide benefits, including improved glycemic control and reduced nursing workload. Before advanced diabetes technology can be used on a large scale in the hospital, further research is needed on efficacy, accuracy and safety, while implementation factors such as cost and staff training must also be overcome.

Glycemia management in critical care is posing a challenge in frequent measuring and adequate insulin dose adjustment. In recent years, continuous glucose measurement has gained accuracy and reliability in outpatient and inpatient settings. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in ICU patients after major abdominal surgery.

We included patients undergoing pancreatic surgery and solid organ transplantation (liver, pancreas, islets of Langerhans, kidney) requiring an ICU stay after surgery. We used a Dexcom G6 sensor, placed in the infraclavicular region, for real-time CGM. Arterial blood glucose measured by the amperometric principle (ABL 800; Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) served as a reference value and for calibration. Blood glucose was also routinely monitored by a StatStrip bedside glucose meter. Sensor accuracy was assessed by mean absolute relative difference (MARD), bias, modified Bland-Altman plot, and surveillance error grid for paired samples of glucose values from CGM and acid-base analyzer (ABL).

We analyzed data from 61 patients and obtained 1,546 paired glucose values from CGM and ABL. Active sensor use was 95.1%. MARD was 9.4%, relative bias was 1.4%, and 92.8% of values fell in zone A, 6.1% fell in zone B, and 1.2% fell in zone C of the surveillance error grid. Median time in range was 78%, with minimum (<1%) time spent in hypoglycemia. StatStrip glucose meter MARD compared with ABL was 5.8%.

Our study shows clinically applicable accuracy and reliability of Dexcom G6 CGM in postoperative ICU patients and a feasible alternative sensor placement site.

Blood glucose level variability has been associated with increased risk of complication in the postoperative setting of cardiovascular surgery. Although interesting for optimization of blood glucose management in this context, continuous blood glucose (CBG) devices can have a limited reliability in this context, in particular because of the use of paracetamol. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of Dexcom G6®, a recently developed continuous glucose monitoring device.

We performed a prospective, observational, non-randomized, single-centre study comparing Dexcom G6® CBG level monitoring with the standard methods routinely used in this context. The standard blood glucose values were paired to the time corresponding values measured with Dexcom G6®. Agreement between the two methods and potential correlation in case of paracetamol use were calculated.

From May 2020 to August 2021, 36 out of 206 patients operated for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting were enrolled; 673 paired blood glucose level were analyzed. Global agreement (ρc) was 0.85 (95% C.I.: 0.84-0.86), intensive care unit agreement was 0.78 (95%C.I.: 0.74-0.82) and ward agreement was 0.91 (95%C.I.: 0.89-0.93). In the diabetic population, it was 0.87 (95%C.I.: 0.85-0.90). When paracetamol was used, the difference was 0.02 mmol/l (95%C.I.: 0.29-0.33).

Dexcom G6® provides good blood glucose level accuracy in the postoperative context of cardiac surgery compared to the standard methods of measurements. The results are particularly reliable in the ward where the need for repeated capillary glucose measurements implies patient discomfort and time-consuming manipulations for the nursing staff.

We evaluated the feasibility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for titrating continuous intravenous insulin infusion (CII) to manage hyperglycemia in postoperative individuals in the cardiovascular intensive care unit and assessed their accuracy, nursing acceptance, and postoperative individual satisfaction.

Dexcom G6 CGM devices were applied to 59 postsurgical patients with hyperglycemia receiving CII. A hybrid approach combining CGM with periodic point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) tests with two phases (initial-ongoing) of validation was used to determine CGM accuracy. Mean and median absolute relative differences and Clarke Error Grid were plotted to evaluate the CGM accuracy. Surveys of nurses and patients on the use of CGMs experience were conducted and results were analyzed.

In this cohort (mean age 64, 32% female, 32% with diabetes) with 864 paired POC-BG and CGM values analyzed, mean and median absolute relative difference between POC-BG and CGM values were 13.2% and 9.8%, respectively. 99.7% of paired CGM and POC-BG were in Zones A and B of the Clarke Error Grid. Responses from nurses reported CGMs being very or quite convenient (n = 28; 93%) and it was favored over POC-BG testing (n = 28; 93%). Majority of patients (n = 42; 93%) reported their care process using CGM as being good or very good.

This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility, accuracy, and nursing convenience of adopting CGM via a hybrid approach for insulin titration in postoperative settings. These findings provide robust rationale for larger confirmatory studies to evaluate the benefit of CGM in postoperative care to improve workflow, enhance health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Diabetes Technology Society organized an expert consensus panel to develop metrics for research in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in a hospital setting. The experts met virtually in small groups both before and after an April 13, 2023 virtual meeting of the entire panel. The goal of the panel was to develop consensus definitions in anticipation of greater use of CGMs in hospital settings in the future. Establishment of consensus definitions of inpatient analytical metrics will be easier to compare outcomes between studies. Panelists defined terms related to 10 dimensions of measurements related to the use of CGMs including (1) hospital hypoglycemia, (2) hospital hyperglycemia, (3) hospital time in range, (4) hospital glycemic variability, (5) hospital glycemia risk index, (6) accuracy of CGM devices and reference methods for CGMs in the hospital, (7) meaningful time blocks for hospital glycemic goals, (8) hospital CGM data sufficiency, (9) using CGM data for insulin dosing, and (10) miscellaneous factors. The panelists voted on 51 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 51 recommendations were classified as either strong (43) or mild (8). Additional research is needed on CGM performance in the hospital. This consensus report is intended to support that type of research intended to improve outcomes for hospitalized people with diabetes.

Although consistent data support the outpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic burden, and clinical outcomes, there are limited data regarding its use in the hospital setting, particularly in the non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) setting. The emerging use of CGM in the non-critical care setting may be useful in increasing the efficiency of hospital care and reducing the length of stay for patients with diabetes while improving glycemic control.

The purpose of this Expert Opinion paper was to evaluate the state of the art and provide a practical model of how CGM can be implemented in the hospital.

A patient's CGM journey from admission to the ward to the application of the sensor, from patient education on the device during hospitalization until discharge of the patient to maintain remote control.

This practical approach for the implementation and management of CGM in patients with diabetes admitted to non-ICUs could guide hospitals in their diabetes management initiatives using CGM, helping to identify patients most likely to benefit and suggesting how this technology can be implemented to maximize clinical benefits.

For years, the standard of care for monitoring dysglycemia in hospitalized patients was capillary blood glucose (CBG) testing with point-of-care glucose meters. Recently, there has been a revolution in novel factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Newer CGMs are smaller and less expensive, have improved accuracy and longer wear time, and do not require fingerstick CBG for calibration, resulting in increased utilization in ambulatory settings. Consequently, hospitals have noticed increased usability of CGMs among hospitalized patients and expect a progressive continued increase. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, with several pilot implementation projects using CGM in the intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit settings, further boosting the evidence in this area. Hence, recent guidelines have provided recommendations for the use of CGM in specific hospital scenarios and highlighted the potential of CGM to overcome CBG limitations for glucose monitoring in the inpatient setting. In this review, we provide the following: 1) an up-to-date review of the accuracy of the newer CGMs in hospitalized patients, 2) a discussion of standards for CGM accuracy metrics, 3) a contemporary overview of potential interferences that may cause inaccuracies or poor CGM performance, and 4) required steps for full regulatory approval of CGMs in the hospital and future research steps to advance the field forward.

As diabetes prevalence has continued to increase in the United States, as well as globally, utilization of disease management techniques has also improved. The evolution in disease management for diabetes has adapted greatly from the initial dipstix method. Continuous glucose monitors have grown in popularity with its introduction to the market. After introduction of CGMs as part of DM management, various advancements have been made to the current models to promote the usage CGMs to promote glycemic control. The main competitors in the CGM market is Medtronic, Dexcom, Freestyle, and Eversense.

Information was primarily gathered by employing various PubMed scholarly articles for real-world examples in addition to data extraction from supplementary manuscripts. Articles were evaluated from over the past 20 years.

Clinically improvement of disease management of blood glucose levels, specifically with regards to mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was utilized to highlight effectiveness of continuous glucose monitors.

Of the four key continuous glucose monitors device on the market in the US, all have demonstrated to have similar beneficial qualities which can be utilized in both T1DM and T2DM patients. The best device for an individual would be based on their specific diabetes management goal (maintain TIR, decreasing TBR/TAR, decrease A1c).

We sought to determine real-world accuracy of inpatient continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at multiple levels of acuity in a large safety-net hospital.

We analyzed records from hospitalized patients on Dexcom G6 CGM, including clinical, point of care (POC), and laboratory (Lab) glucose, and CGM data. POC/Lab values were matched to the closest timed CGM value. Encounters were divided into not critically ill (NCI) versus critically ill (CI). CGM accuracy was evaluated.

Paired readings (2,744 POC-CGM; 3,705 Lab-CGM) were analyzed for 233 patients with 239 encounters (83 NCI, 156 CI). POC-CGM aggregated and average mean absolute relative differences (MARD) were 15.1% and 17.1%. Lab-CGM aggregated and average MARDs were 11.4% and 12.2%. Accuracy for POC-CGM and Lab-CGM was 96.5% and 99.1% in Clarke Error Grid zones A/B.

Real-world accuracy of inpatient CGM is acceptable for NCI and CI patients. Further exploration of conditions associated with lower CGM accuracy in real-world settings is warranted.

The aim of this review is to identify the implementation approaches, strategies, and outcomes for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Medline and Web of Science databases were searched to report relevant literature published between September 12, 2016 and September 12, 2021. Implementation outcomes and strategies, defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project, were extracted.

Of the 324 titles reviewed, 16 articles were included in the review. While no studies were identified as implementation research, 14 of 16 identified implementation strategies that aligned with ERIC definitions. Included studies described a multi-disciplinary approach. Clinical outcomes included Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD), ranging from 7.5 to 15.3%, and 33-71% reduction in frequency of point-of-care (POC) blood glucose monitoring (BGM) using hybrid protocols. This scoping review provides valuable insight into the process of CGM implementation in the ICU. Continued research should include implementation outcomes to inform widespread utilization.

Traditionally, the care of critically ill patients with diabetes or stress hyperglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU) demands the use of continuous intravenous insulin (CII) therapy to achieve narrow glycemic targets. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia and to achieve glycemic targets during CII, healthcare providers (HCP) rely on hourly point-of-care (POC) arterial or capillary glucose tests obtained with glucose monitors. The burden of this approach, however, was evident during the beginning of the pandemic when the immediate reduction in close contact interactions between HCP and patients with COVID-19 was necessary to avoid potentially life-threatening exposures. Taking advantage of the advancements in current diabetes technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices integrated with digital health tools for remote monitoring, HCP implemented novel protocols in the ICU to care for patients with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia. We provide an overview of research conducted in the ICU setting with the use of initial CGM technology to current devices and summarize our recent experience in the ICU.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid implementation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although rarely reported, perceptions from nursing staff who used the systems are critical for successful implementation and future expanded use of CGM in the inpatient setting.

A 22-item survey focused on CGM use was distributed to ICU nurses at two large academic medical centers in the United States in 2022. Both institutions initiated inpatient CGM in the spring of 2020 using the same CGM+point of care (POC) hybrid protocol. The survey employed a 1- to 5-point Likert scale regarding CGM sensor insertion, accuracy, acceptability, usability, training, and perceptions on workload.

Of the 71 surveys completed, 68 (96%) nurses reported they cared for an ICU patient on CGM and 53% reported they had independently performed CGM sensor insertion. The ICU nurses overwhelmingly reported that CGM was accurate, reduced their workload, provided safer patient care, and was preferred over POC glucose testing alone. Interestingly, nearly half of nurses (49%) reported that they considered trend arrows in dosing decisions although trends were not included in the CGM+POC hybrid protocol. Nurses received training through multiple modalities, with the majority (80%) of nurses reporting that CGM training was sufficient and prepared them for its use.

These results confirm nursing acceptance and preference for CGM use within a hybrid glucose monitoring protocol in the ICU setting. These data lay a blueprint for successful implementation and training strategies for future widespread use.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is approved for insulin dosing decisions in the ambulatory setting, but not currently for inpatients. CGM has the capacity to reduce patient-provider contact in inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), thus potentially reducing in hospital virus transmission. However, there are sparse data on the accuracy and efficacy of CGM to titrate insulin doses in inpatients.

Under an emergency use protocol, CGM (Dexcom G6) was used alongside standard point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements in patients critically ill from complications of COVID-19 requiring intravenous (IV) insulin. Glycemic control during IV insulin therapy was retrospectively assessed comparing periods with and without adjunctive CGM use. Accuracy metrics were computed and Clarke Error Grid analysis performed comparing CGM glucose values with POC measurements.

Twenty-four critically ill patients who met criteria for emergency use of CGM resulted in 47 333 CGM and 5677 POC glucose values. During IV insulin therapy, individuals' glycemic control improved when CGM was used (mean difference -30.7 mg/dL). Among 2194 matched CGM: POC glucose pairs, a high degree of concordance was observed with a mean absolute relative difference of 14.8% and 99.5% of CGM: POC pairs falling in Zones A and B of the Clarke Error Grid.

Continuous glucose monitoring use in critically ill COVID-19 patients improved glycemic control during IV insulin therapy. Continuous glucose monitoring glucose data were highly concordant with POC glucose during IV insulin therapy in critically ill patients suggesting that CGM could substitute for POC measurements in inpatients thus reducing patient-provider contact and mitigating infection transmission.

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia require frequent glucose monitoring, usually performed with glucometers. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are common in the outpatient setting but not yet approved for hospital use. We evaluated CGM accuracy, safety for insulin dosing, and CGM clinical reliability in 20 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia.

Study patients were fitted with a remotely monitored CGM. CGM values were evaluated against glucometer readings. The CGM sensor calibration was performed if necessary. CGM values were used to dose insulin, without glucometer confirmation.

CGM accuracy against glucometer, expressed as mean absolute relative difference (MARD), was calculated using 812 paired glucometer-CGM values. The aggregate MARD was 10.4%. For time in range and grades 1 and 2 hyperglycemia, MARD was 11.4%, 9.4%, and 9.1%, respectively, with a small variation between medical floors and intensive care units. There was no MARD correlation with mean arterial blood pressure levels, oxygen saturation, daily hemoglobin levels, and glomerular filtration rates. CGM clinical reliability was high, with 99.7% of the CGM values falling within the "safe" zones of Clarke error grid. After CGM placement, the frequency of glucometer measurements decreased from 5 to 3 and then 2 per day, reducing nurse presence in patient rooms and limiting viral exposure.

With twice daily, on-demand calibration, the inpatient CGM use was safe for insulin dosing, decreasing the frequency of glucometer fingersticks. For glucose levels >70 mg/dL, CGMs showed adequate accuracy, without interference from vital and laboratory values.

Whether subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can safely replace intermittent arterial blood gas glucose analyses in intensive care unit (ICU) patients remains uncertain. We aimed to compare CGM to blood gas glucose values and assess whether CGM use reduces blood gas sampling frequency and glucose variability in ICU patients with type 2 diabetes managed with liberal glucose control.

We used the FreeStyle Libre CGM in 15 ICU patients and compared their blood glucose metrics with a pre-CGM control population of 105 ICU patients with type 2 diabetes. Both groups received insulin to target glucose range of 10-14 mmol/L. We used linear regression analysis adjusted for illness severity to assess the association of CGM use with blood gas sampling frequency and glucose variability. We used mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and Clarke error grid analysis to assess accuracy of matched CGM-blood glucose values overall, across glucose stata (<10, 10-14, >14 mmol/L), and over time (≤48, 48-96, >96 h).

We analyzed 483 matched glucose values. Overall MARD was 11.5 (95% CI, 10.7-12.3)% with 99% of readings in Clarke zones A and B. MARD was 15.5% for glucose values <10 mmol/L, 11.1% at 10-14 mmol/L, and 11.4% >14 mmol/L. MARD was 13.8% in the first 48 h, 10.9% at 48-96 h, and 8.9% beyond 96 h. CGM use was associated with 30% reduction in blood gas sampling frequency. CGM use was not associated with glucose variability as determined by glycemic lability index or standard deviation of blood glucose.

In our cohort of ICU patients with type 2 diabetes receiving liberal glycemic control, CGM showed acceptable accuracy and was associated with a reduction in blood gas sampling frequency without compromising glucose control. Lowest accuracy was observed at glucose values below 10 mmol/L and during the first 48 h of CGM use.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, also known as automated insulin delivery systems, are a rapidly growing technology in diabetes management. Because more patients are using these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to also assess inpatient safety to determine whether HCL use can be continued when those patients become hospitalized.

The records of patients using HCL technology on admission to our hospital between June 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed.

The final analysis included 71 patients divided into 3 categories based on their pump use as an inpatient: (1) HCL users; (2) manual pump users; and (3) pump removed. All cohorts were similar in age, sex, race, hemoglobin A1C at admission, and in Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels, frequency of patient-specific hyperglycemic measurements, and frequency of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups. No adverse events, particularly occurrences of diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications or infection, or equipment malfunction, were reported.

This preliminary case series review indicates that continued use of HCL technology in the hospital is safe. Moreover, glycemic control in HCL users was comparable with that in those using insulin pump with manual settings and those converted to basal-bolus insulin therapy.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Until recently, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems were reserved for use in the outpatient setting or for investigational purposes in hospitalized patients. However, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, use of CGM in the inpatient setting has grown rapidly. This review outlines important details related to the accuracy, limitations, and implementation of, as well as necessary staff education for, inpatient CGM use and offers a glimpse into the future of CGM in the inpatient setting.

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used in the outpatient setting for people with diabetes and has been limited to investigational use only for the inpatient population. In April 2020, the US FDA exercised enforcement discretion for the temporary use of inpatient CGM during the pandemic, thus hospitals were presented the opportunity to implement this technology.

We sought to investigate the accuracy of CGM in hospitalized patients on general care floors and the intensive care unit (ICU) in attempts to decrease healthcare professional exposure to COVID-19 and ultimately improve glycemic management of patients affected by COVID-19. Point of care (POC) and laboratory (Lab) glucose values were matched with simultaneous CGM glucose values and measures of accuracy were performed to evaluate the safety and usability of CGM in this population. Our data are presented drawing a distinction between POC and Lab as reference glucose sources.

In 808 paired samples obtained from 28 patients (10 ICU, 18 general floor), overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for all patients using either POC or Lab as reference was 13.2%. When using POC as the reference glucose MARD was 13.9% and using Lab glucose as reference 10.9%. Using both POC and Lab reference glucose pairs the overall MARD for critical care patients was 12.1% and for general floor patients 14%.

We determined, with proper protocols and safeguards in place, use of CGM in the hospitalized patient is a reasonable alternative to standard of care to achieve the goal of reducing healthcare professional exposure. Further study is necessary to validate safety, accuracy, and efficacy of this technology. Investigation and analysis are necessary for the development of protocols to utilize CGM trend arrows, alerts, and alarms.

The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital setting is growing with more patients using these devices at home and when admitted to the hospital, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Historically, most evidence for CGM use in the inpatient setting was limited to small studies utilizing outdated CGM technology and analyzing accuracy of sensor measurements. Previous studies have shown reduced sensor accuracy during extreme hypo- or hyperglycemia, rapid fluctuations of glucose, compression of the sensor itself, and in those who are critically ill. Studies that are more recent have shown CGM to have adequate accuracy and may be effective in reducing hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients; some studies have also showed improvement in time in target glycemic range. Furthermore, CGM may reduce nursing workload, cost of inpatient care, and use of personal protective equipment and face-to-face patient care especially for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review will describe the evidence for use of CGM in hospitalized critically ill or non-critically ill patients, address accuracy and safety considerations, and outline paths for future implementation.

The annual Virtual Hospital Diabetes Meeting was hosted by Diabetes Technology Society on April 1 and April 2, 2022. This meeting brought together experts in diabetes technology to discuss various new developments in the field of managing diabetes in hospitalized patients. Meeting topics included (1) digital health and the hospital, (2) blood glucose targets, (3) software for inpatient diabetes, (4) surgery, (5) transitions, (6) coronavirus disease and diabetes in the hospital, (7) drugs for diabetes, (8) continuous glucose monitoring, (9) quality improvement, (10) diabetes care and educatinon, and (11) uniting people, process, and technology to achieve optimal glycemic management. This meeting covered new technology that will enable better care of people with diabetes if they are hospitalized.

Hospitalization of persons with diabetes in an inpatient diabetes unit is challenging, notably for patients having different profiles. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the benefit of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) telemetry system to control glucose excursions in hospitalized patients with diabetes, according to their diabetes type and the reasons for their hospitalization.

A prospective pilot study was conducted in 53 insulin-requiring diabetes patients hospitalized in the general ward. Glucose was monitored using Guardian Connect (GC, Medtronic) to adopt insulin therapy. The time in range (TIR, target 70-180 mg/dL), the time below range (TBR), and the time above range (TAR) were recorded by GC between the start of hospitalization (SH) and end of hospitalization (EH), and analyzed according to the diabetes type (type 1 diabetes n = 28, type 2 diabetes n = 25) and the reasons for hospitalization (acute complications n = 35, therapeutic education n = 18). Patient and caregiver satisfaction was also assessed.

In patients with type 2 diabetes and those hospitalized for acute complications, TIR significantly increased between the SH and EH, from 75.7% (95%CI 48.5-84.6) to 82.2% (95%CI 63.2-91.8) P = 0.043 and from 58.3% (95%CI 46.3-69.7) to 66.4% (95%CI 55.6-75.5) P = 0.031, respectively, and TAR significantly decreased, with no change in TBR. In patients with diabetes hospitalized for therapeutic education, TBR significantly decreased from 3.4% (95%CI 0-9.4) to 0% (95%CI 0-3.8) P = 0.037. Finally, 94% of patients and caregivers deemed the GC system useful.

CGM telemetry system use is feasible and well accepted in patients hospitalized in diabetes care unit and could be useful to improve therapeutic education and metabolic control, especially for specific homogenous populations with diabetes.

The clinical utility of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Hence, we investigated the accuracy of isCGM in COVID-19 patients during dexamethasone therapy. We evaluated the accuracy of the FreeStyle Libre via smartphone isCGM device compared to point-of-care (POC) fingerstick glucose level monitoring in 16 patients with COVID-19 (10 with and 6 without diabetes, 13 men; HbA1c 6.9 ± 1.0%). Overall, isCGM correlated well with POC measurements (46.2% and 53.8% within areas A and B of the Parkes error grid, respectively). The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for isCGM compared to POC measurements was 19.4%. The MARDs were 19.8% and 19.7% for POC blood glucose measurements ranging from 70 to 180 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL, respectively. When divided according to the presence and absence of diabetes, both groups of paired glucose measurements showed a good correlation (56.3% and 43.7%, and 27.1% and 72.9% within the A and B areas in patients with and without diabetes, respectively), but the MARD was not significant but higher in patients without diabetes (16.5% and 24.2% in patients with and without diabetes). In conclusion, although isCGM may not be as accurate as traditional blood glucose monitoring, it has good reliability in COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes during dexamethasone therapy.

There have been tremendous advances in diabetes technology in the last decade. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM), insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems aim to improve glycemic control while simultaneously decreasing the burden of diabetes management. Although diabetes technologies have been shown to decrease both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and to improve health-related quality of life in individuals with type 1 diabetes, the impact of these devices in individuals with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) is less clear. There are unique aspects of CFRD, including the different underlying pathophysiology and unique lived health care experience and comorbidities, that likely affect the use, efficacy, and uptake of diabetes technology in this population. Small studies suggest that CGM is accurate and may be helpful in guiding insulin therapy for individuals with CFRD. Insulin pump use has been linked to improvements in lean body mass and hemoglobin A1c among adults with CFRD. A recent pilot study highlighted the promise of AID systems in this population. This article provides an overview of practical aspects of diabetes technology use and device limitations that clinicians must be aware of in caring for individuals with CF and CFRD. Cost and limited insurance coverage remain significant barriers to wider implementation of diabetes technology use among patients with CFRD. Future studies exploring strategies to improve patient and CF provider education about these devices and studies showing the effectiveness of these technologies on health and patient-reported outcomes may lead to improved insurance coverage and increased rates of uptake and sustained use of these technologies in the CFRD community.