Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3141_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
CHAPTER 21 CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING 131
magnitude of glucose changes, and alarms that alert for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia; some also alert for
predicted hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia so that preventive action can be taken.
9. What information do providers get from a professional or personal CGM?
Data recorded by CGM devices can be downloaded directly or virtually to display an ambulatory glucose profile
(AGP), mean glucose levels throughout the day, postmeal glucose excursions, glucose variability, and user wear
time.
10. What is the AGP?
The AGP is generated from the CGM download (usually for a 2-week period). It consists of a glucose management
indicator (GMI), which is an estimate of the equivalent A1c for that 2-week period; the overall average glucose
value; the percent of time in range (TIR) at various levels; glucose variability (coefficient of variation and/or stan-
dard deviation); and active CGM wear time. A suggested system for recording the AGP in a person’s chart is as
follows:
Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): ___%
Average BG: ___ mg/dL
TIR:
TIR > 250 mg/dL: ___%
TIR > 180 mg/dL: ___%
TIR 70 to 180 mg/dL: ___%
TIR < 70 mg/dL: ___%
TIR < 54 mg/dL: ___%
Coefficient of variation: ___% Standard deviation: ___ mg/dL
Time (%) CGM active: ___%
11. What are the TIR targets for people using personal CGM devices?
See Table 21.2.
Table 21.1 Personal Continuous Glucose Monitors
CGM MARD WEAR TIME NEED TO
CALIBRATE
AUDIBLE
ALERTS
PUMP
INTEGRATION
Abbott FreeStyle
Libre 2
9.3% 14 days No Yes Approved
Dexcom G5, G6 9.0% 10 days No Yes Tandem T-Slim X2
Guardian Connect 3 8.7%–10.6%
7 days 2×/day
Yes Yes Medtronic
670/770 G
Senseonics
Eversense
8.5%
90 days 2×/day
Yes No No
CGM, Continuous glucose monitor; MARD, mean absolute relative difference (compared with gold-standard lab values).
Table 21.2 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Time in Range (TIR) Targets in Nonpregnant
Adults (2021)
OLDER/HIGH-RISK
TYPE 1 + TYPE 2 TYPE 1 + TYPE 2
GLUCOSE TARGET TIR TARGET TIR
>250 mg/dL <5% <10%
>180 mg/dL <25% <50%
70–180 mg/dL
>70% >50%
<70 mg/dL <4% <1%
<54 mg/dL <1%
0%
https://t.me/medicina_free
132 DIABETES SECRETS
12. Is there a standardized approach for interpreting CGM downloads?
Standardized approaches to CGM interpretation, such as those used for electrocardiograms (ECGs), have not been
formalized; however, in addition to analyzing the AGP, we recommend using a systematic method for evaluating
CGM data. We use the following approach: first, the AGP is analyzed for overall glucose control and time spent in
various glucose ranges; next, the fasting glucose values, postprandial glucose values after each meal, bedtime
glucose values, and the glucose changes overnight are serially analyzed. We then summarize when glucose is
most often high, most often low, and most variable. We finish with an overall impression and recommendations for
management.
It is often helpful to use a standardized form. We use the worksheet shown in Table 21.3.
13. How are CGM trend arrows used to help with optimal insulin dosing decisions?
Trend arrows show the direction and magnitude of glucose changes. The changes are depicted differently by the
different CGM devices. Figs. 21.1 and 21.2 show the arrow figures as they appear on the Dexcom G6 and Freestyle
Libre, respectively. Trend-arrow interpretation is shown in Table 21.4 for the Dexcom G6 and in Table 21.5 for the
Freestyle Libre. Recent publications have recommended how to use trend arrows to adjust bolus doses.
Table 21.3 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Interpretation Worksheet
Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Glucose Pattern Interpretation
Fasting glucose: __________
Postprandial glucose: __________
Bedtime glucose: __________
Overnight glucose: __________
High glucose: __________
Low glucose: __________
Glucose variability: __________
Overall: __________
Recommendations: __________
Increasing/decreasing less than 1
mg/dL each minute
Glucose could
in 30 minutes
30-60 mg/dL
Glucose could
in 30 minutes
Glucose could
in 30 minutes
increase/decrease
60-90 mg/dL
more than 90 mg/dL
increase/decrease
increase/decrease
Fig. 21.1 Dexcom G6 arrow figures and their interpretation.
https://t.me/medicina_free
CHAPTER 21 CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING 133
A simple approach works best, in our experience, for real-life situations. Tables 21.4 and 21.5 also show (right
columns) what bolus dose changes we recommend in response to trend arrows on these two systems. Whatever
method is used, it is important to individualize the plan for each person and make sure these adjustments can be
made during a person’s day-to-day life.
14. How do CGM devices integrate with insulin pumps?
The current integrated technology is referred to as a hybrid closed-loop system. It is termed a hybrid rather than a
fully closed-loop because these systems use CGM data to adjust basal insulin delivery rates and correction doses
Rising quickly
Glucose is rising quickly
Increasing >2 mg/dL/min or >60 mg/dL in 30 minutes
Glucose is rising
Increasing 1–2 mg/dL/min or 30–60 mg/dL in 30 minutes
Glucose is changing slowly
Not increasing/decreasing >1 mg/dL/min
Glucose is falling
Decreasing 1–2 mg/dL/min or 30–60 mg/dL in 30 minutes
Glucose is falling quickly
Decreasing >2 mg/dL/min or >60 mg/dL in 30 minutes
Glucose Direction
FreeStyle Libre System Trend Arrows
Change in GlucoseReader
Rising
Changing slowly
Falling
Falling quickly
No arrow present indicates that the system cannot calculate the velocity and direction of the glucose change.
Fig. 21.2 Freestyle Libre arrow figures and their interpretation.
Table 21.4 Dexcom G6 Trend Arrows: Interpretation and Recommended Insulin Changes
ARROWS GLUCOSE CHANGE BOLUS DOSE CHANGE
Two 90° arrows up
Rising >3 mg/dL/min
Add 3 units
One 90° arrow up Rising 2 to 3 mg/dL/min Add 2 to 3 units
One 45° arrow up Rising 1 to 2 mg/dL/min Add 1 to 2 units
Horizontal arrow
Changing <1 mg/dL/min
Take usual bolus dose
One 45° arrow down Falling 1 to 2 mg/dL/min Subtract 1 to 2 units
One 90° arrow down Falling 2 to 3 mg/dL/min Subtract 2 to 3 units or omit
Two 90° arrows down
Falling >3 mg/dL/min
Don’t take a bolus
Table 21.5 Freestyle Libre 2 Trend Arrows: Interpretation and Recommended Insulin
Changes
ARROWS GLUCOSE CHANGE BOLUS DOSE CHANGE
One 90° arrow up
Rising >2 mg/dL/min
Add 2–3 units
One 45° arrow up Rising 1 to 2 mg/dL/min Add 1–2 units
Horizontal arrow
Changing <1 mg/dL/min
Take usual bolus dose
One 45° arrow down Falling 1 to 2 mg/dL/min Subtract 1–2 units
One 90° arrow down
Falling >2 mg/dL/min
Subtract 2–3 units or omit
https://t.me/medicina_free
134 DIABETES SECRETS
but do not provide automatic meal boluses; therefore people must still count carbohydrates accurately and manu-
ally to determine the bolus to cover meals adequately. This topic is covered more fully in Chapter 23.
15. Is there evidence that CGM improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes?
Multiple studies in people with type 1 diabetes, treated with multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps, have
demonstrated that CGM use reduces A1c, increases glucose time in target range, reduces time in hypoglycemia,
improves hypoglycemia awareness in those who have hypoglycemia unawareness, and improves quality of life.
16. Does CGM improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes?
Personal CGM in people with type 2 diabetes who are taking multiple daily insulin injections has been reported
to significantly reduce A1c levels but not hypoglycemia. Professional CGM done intermittently (3-month intervals)
in people with type 2 diabetes in general practices has been shown to reduce A1c and improve glucose time in
target range.
17. Can CGM be used in hospitalized patients, including those in intensive care?
CGM devices have not yet (as of the date of this writing) been FDA approved for inpatient use. Although there are
previously published and currently ongoing studies addressing this issue, there is still insufficient evidence that
interstitial glucose values obtained in the inpatient setting, especially in intensive care, are accurate enough to
inform insulin dosing decisions. However, consensus guidelines have been published supporting CGM use in
hospitalized individuals.
18. Let’s practice some CGM interpretations
Practice exercises in CGM interpretation are presented in the next chapter.
Key Points
1. A CGM has three components: (1) a sensor that is inserted under the skin and measures interstitial glucose levels almost continu-
ously (every 1–5 minutes), (2) a transmitter that wirelessly transmits the glucose values, and (3) a receiver that displays the glucose
values in real time or intermittently and shows trend arrows to inform the user about the direction and magnitude of glucose
changes.
2. Professional CGM devices are owned by providers and are loaned to users for 1 to 2 weeks at a time, either recording blinded glu-
cose patterns or displaying real-time glucose values that can later be downloaded by providers for analysis.
3. Personal CGM devices are prescribed by the provider and are owned by the user to be worn every day or intermittently. Without the
need for fingerstick glucose testing or with only twice-a-day testing, personal CGM provides people with real-time or intermittent
interstitial glucose values; trend arrows showing the direction and magnitude of glucose changes; and alarms that alert for hypogly-
cemia, predicted hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and predicted hyperglycemia.
4. The AGP is generated from the CGM download and consists of the GMI, an estimate of the equivalent A1c for the preceding 2-week
period; the overall average glucose value; the percentage of TIR at various levels; glucose variability; and active CGM wear time.
5. CGM devices measure interstitial fluid glucose and not BG. When BG values are stable, interstitial glucose values are usually very
close to BG values. However, when BG levels are changing, interstitial glucose values lag by 15 to 30 minutes and thus will give lower
glucose readings when BG values are rising and higher glucose readings when BG values are falling.
6. Multiple studies in people with type 1 diabetes, treated with multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps, have demonstrated that
CGM use reduces A1c, increases glucose time in target range, reduces time in hypoglycemia, improves hypoglycemia awareness in
people with hypoglycemia unawareness, and improves quality of life.
BiBliograPhy
Ahmadi SS, Westman K, Pivodic A, etal. The association between HbA1c and time in hypoglycemia during CGM and self-monitoring
of blood glucose in people with type 1 diabetes and multiple daily injections: a randomized clinical trial (GOLD-4). Diabetes Care.
2020;43:2017–2024.
Aleppo G, Laffel LM, Ahmann AJ, etal. A practical approach to using trend arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM System for the management
of adults with diabetes. J Endocr Soc. 2017 Nov 20;1(12):1445–1460.
American Diabetes Association. Clinical Practice Recommendations 2020. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S1–S123.
Bailey TS, Grunberger G, Bode BW, etal. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology 2016
Outpatient Glucose Monitoring Consensus Statement. Endocr Pract. 2016 Feb;22(2):231–261.
Battelino T. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:795–800.
Battelino T. The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomized
controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2012;55:3155–3162.
Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, etal. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from
the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019 Aug;42(8):1593–1603.
Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, etal. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using
insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):371–378.
Beck RW, Riddlesworth TD, Ruedy K, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving
multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Sep 19;167(6):365–374.
Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol
Ther. 2017 May;19(S2):S4–S11.
Chamberlain JJ, Doyle-Delgado K, Peterson L, Skolnik N. Diabetes technology: review of the 2019 American Diabetes Association
standards of medical care in diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:415–420.
https://t.me/medicina_free
CHAPTER 21 CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING 135
Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, Gregory R, etal. Effect of flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, diabetes-related
distress, and resource utilization in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) nationwide audit. Diabetes Care.
2020;43:2153–2160.
Engler R, Routh TL, Lucisano JY. Adoption barriers for continuous glucose monitoring and their potential reduction with a fully implanted
system: results from patient preference surveys. Clin Diabetes. 2018 Jan;36(1):50–58.
Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre
international randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017 Nov 25;390(10110):2347–2359.
Fonseca VA, Grunberger G, Anhalt H, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring: a consensus conference of the American Association of
Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Endocr Pract. 2016 Aug;22(8):1008–1021.
Furler J, O’Neal D, Speight J, etal. Use of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring, at 3-month intervals in adults with type 2 diabe-
tes in general practice (GP-OSMOTIC): a pragmatic, open-label, 12-month, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.
2020;8:17–26.
Galindo RJ, Umpierrez GE, Rushakoff RJ, etal. Continuous glucose monitors and automated insulin dosing systems in the hospital
consensus guideline. J Diab Sci Technot. 2020, Sep 28:1–30.
Garg K. Use of continuous glucose monitoring in subjects with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections versus continuous subcutane-
ous insulin infusion therapy. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:574–579.
Grunberger G, Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT, etal. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of
Endocrinology 2018 position statement on integration of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes
mellitus. Endocr Pract. 2018 Mar;24(3):302–308.
Klonoff DC. Continuous glucose monitoring: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
2011;96:2968–2979.
Kudva YC, Ahmann AJ, Bergenstal RM, etal. Approach to using trend arrows in the FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring systems in
adults. J Endocr Soc. 2018 Nov 14;2(12):1320–1337.
Laffel LM, Aleppo G, Buckingham BA, etal. A practical approach to using trend arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM System to manage
children and adolescents with diabetes. J Endocr Soc. 2017 Nov 20;1(12):1461–1476.
Leelarathna L, English SW, Thabit H, etal. Accuracy of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: improved
sensor performance with enhanced calibrations. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014 Feb;16(2):97–101.
Lin YK, Groat D, Chan O, etal. Alarm settings of continuous glucose monitoring systems and associations to glucose outcomes in type 1
diabetes. J Endocr Soc. 2019 Nov 19;4(1):bvz005 http://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvz005. eCollection 2020 Jan 1.
Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1
diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):379–387.
Pease A, Lo C, Earnest A, etal. Time in range for multiple technologies in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-
analysis. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:1967–1975.
Rickels MR, Peleckis AJ, Dalton-Bakes C, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring for hypoglycemia avoidance and glucose counter-
regulation in long-standing type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Jan 1;103(1):105–114.
Shah V, DuBose SN, Li Z, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring profiles in healthy nondiabetic participants: a multicentre prospective
study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:4356–4364.
Spanakis EK, Levitt DL, Siddiqui T, etal. The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in preventing inpatient hypoglycemia in general
wards: the glucose telemetry system. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Jan;12(1):20–25.
Umpierrez GE, Klonoff DC. Diabetes technology update: use of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital. Diabetes
Care. 2018 Aug;41(8):1579–1589.
van Beers CA, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of
hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Nov;4(11):893–902.
van Beers CAJ, de Wit M, Kleijer SJ, etal. Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of
hypoglycemia: also effective in patients with psychological distress? Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Oct;19(10):595–599.
Wallia A, Umpierrez GE, Rushakoff RJ, etal. Consensus statement on inpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci
Technol. 2017 Sep;11(5):1036–1044.
WeBsites
DANAtech. www.danatech.org
DiabetesWise. www.diabeteswise.org
https://t.me/medicina_free
136
CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITOR INTERPRETATION CASES
In the following cases, CGM = continuous glucose monitor; GMI = glucose management indicator.
CASE 1
The patient is a 72-year-old man who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 67 years. He has developed diabetic retinopathy, peripheral neuropathy,
and coronary artery disease. He manages his glucose with a hybrid closed-loop insulin pump and CGM. A1C = 6.6%. GMI = 6.5%. CGM data are
shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
Glucose Statistics
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
134
Glucose Exposure
Very LowLow In Targ et
Range
High
< 54 mg/dL < 70 mg/dL
70 - 180 mg/dL > 180 mg/dL > 250 mg/dL
SD
mg/dL
1.6% 8.2% 73.4%
18.4% 1.0% 35.1%
47
96.9%
Very High Coefficient of
Variation
Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
% Time CGM
Active
Glucose Ranges
12AM 12PM 12AM
2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 10AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
mg/dL
CGM
50% - Median 25/75% - IQR 10/90% Target Range
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distibutions by time regarless of date.
CASE 2
The patient is a 68-year-old woman who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 12 years. She has developed background diabetic retinopathy.
She manages her glucose with an insulin pump and a CGM. A1c = 7.5%. GMI = 7.6%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING
INTERPRETATION: PRACTICE CASES
Michael T. McDermott, MD
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
CHAPTER 22
https://t.me/medicina_free
Chapter 22 CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING INTERPRETATION: PRACTICE CASES 137
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
mg/dL
12AM 12PM 12AM2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 10AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distibutions by time regarless of date.
Glucose Statistics
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
172
Glucose Exposure
Very LowLow In Target
Range
High
< 54 mg/dL < 70 mg/dL
70 - 180 mg/dL > 180 mg/dL > 250 mg/dL
SD
mg/dL
0.7% 5.3% 53.5%
41.2% 15.6% 43.7%
75
87.1%
Very High Coefficient of
Variation
Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
% Time CGM
Active
Glucose Ranges
CASE 3
The patient is a 76-year-old woman who has had type 2 diabetes mellitus for 14 years. She has developed microalbuminuria, background
diabetic retinopathy, and peripheral neuropathy. Diabetes medications are metformin and basal-bolus insulin therapy. She uses a CGM. A1c =
7.9%. GMI = 7.6%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
mg/dL
12AM 12PM 12AM
2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 10AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
Glucose Statistics
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
183
Glucose Exposure
Very LowLow In Target
Range
High
< 54 mg/dL
< 70 mg/dL
70 - 180 mg/dL > 180 mg/dL > 250 mg/dL
SD
mg/dL
0.0% 0.0% 57.6%
42.4% 14.5% 35.2%
64
98.3%
Very High Coefficient of
Variation
Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
% Time CGM
Active
Glucose Ranges
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distibutions by time regarless of date.
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
https://t.me/medicina_free
138 DIABETES SECRETS
CASE 4
The patient is a 48-year-old woman who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 34 years and has no chronic complications. She manages her
glucose with an insulin pump and a CGM. A1c = 7.0%. GMI = 6.9%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
mg/dL
12AM 12PM 12AM2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 10AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distibutions by time regarless of date.
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Glucose Statistics
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
159
Glucose Exposure
Very LowLow In Ta rget
Range
High
< 54 mg/dL < 70 mg/dL
70 - 180 mg/dL > 180 mg/dL > 250 mg/dL
SD
mg/dL
0.6% 2.7% 68.8%
25.5% 9.7% 40.9%
65
96.6%
Very High Coefficient of
Variation
Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
% Time CGM
Active
Glucose Ranges
CASE 5
The patient is a 57-year-old woman who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 28 years and has no chronic complications. She manages her
glucose with a hybrid closed-loop insulin pump and CGM. A1c = 6.5%. GMI = 6.4%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
10AM8AM6AM4AM2AM
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
10PM
10%
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
mg/dL
25%
50%
75%
90%
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distributions by time regardless of date.
12AM12PM12AM
8PM6PM4PM2PM
Glucose Exposure
Glucose Statistics
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
Very Low LowIn Target
Range
High Very High
< 54 mg/dL < 70 mg/dL 70 - 180 mg/dL
Glucose Ranges Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
% Time CGN
Active
SD
mg/dL
Coefficient of
Variation
> 180 mg/dL
> 250 mg/dL
136 3.3% 11.1% 68.8% 20.1% 6.3% 44.1% 60 64.8%
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
https://t.me/medicina_free
Chapter 22 CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING INTERPRETATION: PRACTICE CASES 139
CASE 6
The patient is a 61-year-old man who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 48 years. He has developed diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, peripheral
neuropathy, and coronary artery disease. He manages his glucose with an insulin pump and a CGM. A1c = 7.6%. GMI = 7.4%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
Glucose Exposure
Glucose Statistics
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
Very Low LowIn Target
Range
High Very High
< 54 mg/dL < 70 mg/dL 70 - 180 mg/dL
Glucose Ranges Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
% Time CGN
Active
SD
mg/dL
Coefficient of
Variation
> 180 mg/dL
> 250 mg/dL
197 2.1% 5.6% 39.8% 54.6% 24.5% 43.8% 86 81.4%
10AM8AM6AM4AM2AM
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
10PM
10%
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
mg/dL
25%
50%
75%
90%
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distributions by time regardless of date.
12AM12PM12AM
8PM6PM4PM2PM
CASE 7
The patient is a 29-year-old woman who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 2 years and has no chronic complications. She manages her
glucose with a hybrid closed-loop insulin pump and CGM. A1c = 7.2%. GMI = 6.8%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
12AM 12PM 12AM2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM10AM
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
400
350
mg/dL
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
300
250
150
100
50
0
200
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distributions by time regardless of date.
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
Very LowLow In Ta rget
Range
High Ve ry High Coefficient of
Variation
SD
mg/dL
% Time CGM
Active
165 0.0% 0.3% 68.8% 30.9% 10.1% 33.8% 99.0%56
Glucose Exposure
< 54 mg/dL< 70 mg/dL70 - 180 mg/dL
Glucose Ranges Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
Glucose Statistics
> 180 mg/dL> 250 mg/dL
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
https://t.me/medicina_free
140 DIABETES SECRETS
CASE 8
The patient is a 41-year-old man who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 11 years and has no chronic complications. He manages his
glucose with a hybrid closed-loop insulin pump and CGM. A1C = 7.0%. GMI = 6.7%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
Very LowLow In Ta rget
Range
High Very High Coefficient of
Variation
SD
mg/dL
% Time CGM
Active
158 0.5% 4.4% 63.8% 31.8% 11.5% 44.2% 93.6%70
Glucose Exposure
< 54 mg/dL< 70 mg/dL 70 - 180 mg/dL
Glucose Ranges Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
Glucose Statistics
> 180 mg/dL> 250 mg/dL
400
350
mg/dL
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
300
250
150
100
50
0
200
12AM 12PM 12AM2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM10AM
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distributions by time regardless of date.
CASE 9
The patient is a 56-year-old woman who has had type 1 diabetes mellitus for 45 years. She has developed mild diabetic nephropathy and diabetic
retinopathy. She manages her glucose with a hybrid closed-loop insulin pump and CGM. A1c = 8.0%. GMI = 8.1%. CGM data are shown.
What is your interpretation?
What are your recommendations?
Avg Glucose
mg/dL
Very LowLow In Ta rget
Range
High Very High Coefficient of
Variation
SD
mg/dL
% Time CGM
Active
168 0.0% 0.2% 58.8% 41.0% 5.5% 29.2% 98.5%49
Glucose Exposure
< 54 mg/dL< 70 mg/dL70 – 180 mg/dL
Glucose Ranges Glucose Variability Data Sufficiency
Glucose Statistics
> 180 mg/dL> 250 mg/dL
400
350
mg/dL
Ambulatory Glucose Profile
300
250
150
100
50
0
200
Curves/plots represent glucose frequency distributions by time regardless of date.
12AM 12PM 12AM
2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM10AM
90%
75%
50%
25%
10%
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
Copyright 2021, DexCom, Inc.
https://t.me/medicina_free
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана