Continuous glucose monitoring--a study of the Enlite sensor during hypo- and hyperbaric conditions.

Göteborg Pediatric Growth Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.
Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 2.29). 03/2012; 14(6):527-32. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2011.0284
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The performance and accuracy of the Enlite(™) (Medtronic, Inc., Northridge, CA) sensor may be affected by microbubble formation at the electrode surface during hypo- and hyperbaric conditions. The effects of acute pressure changes and of prewetting of sensors were investigated.
On Day 1, 24 sensors were inserted on the right side of the abdomen and back in one healthy individual; 12 were prewetted with saline solution, and 12 were inserted dry. On Day 2, this procedure was repeated on the left side. All sensors were attached to an iPro continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recorder. Hypobaric and hyperbaric tests were conducted in a pressure chamber, with each test lasting 105 min. Plasma glucose values were obtained at 5-min intervals with a HemoCue(®) (Ängelholm, Sweden) model 201 glucose analyzer for comparison with sensor glucose values.
Ninety percent of the CGM systems operated during the tests. The mean absolute relative difference was lower during hyperbaric than hypobaric conditions (6.7% vs. 14.9%, P<0.001). Sensor sensitivity was slightly decreased (P<0.05) during hypobaric but not during hyperbaric conditions. Clarke Error Grid Analysis showed that 100% of the values were found in the A+B region. No differences were found between prewetted and dry sensors.
The Enlite sensor performed adequately during acute pressure changes and was more accurate during hyperbaric than hypobaric conditions. Prewetting the sensors did not improve accuracy. Further studies on type 1 diabetes subjects are needed under various pressure conditions.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Several countries restrict individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) from skydiving because of concerns over possible alterations in consciousness. To our knowledge, glucose levels and working memory in individuals with T1DM during skydiving have not been assessed earlier. The objective of this study was to investigate changes in glucose levels and working memory in selected subjects with T1DM compared with control subjects without diabetes mellitus (DM) during ambient air pressure changes as those anticipated during standard skydiving. Subjects and Methods: Six subjects with T1DM and six controls were included. Using a hypobaric chamber, the ambient air pressure was changed to simulate a standard skydive from 4,000 m (13,000 feet) above mean sea level. The procedure was repeated six times to mimic a day of skydiving activity with a median of 8.7 h/day (5(th), 95(th) percentile: 8.1, 9.8 h). All subjects carried a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Capillary glucose tests were taken in order to calibrate the CGM. Hemoglobin oxygen saturation, heart rate, and working memory, evaluated through digit span, were monitored regularly. Results: No subject experienced documented symptomatic hypoglycemia with impaired working memory during the simulations. One asymptomatic hypoglycemia episode with a plasma glucose level of <3.9 mmol/L was recorded in a subject with T1DM, with a corresponding CGM trend indicating declining glucose levels. Interstitial glucose levels of <3.9 mmol/L were recorded by CGM in three of the controls during the simulations. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin oxygen saturation, heart rate, or working memory between the T1DM patients and the controls. Conclusions: This study of interstitial glucose levels and working memory could not show the activity-specific risk factor (i.e., repetitive rapid-onset hypobaric hypoxia exposures) to be a greater safety concern for selected subjects with T1DM compared with subjects without DM during a simulated day of skydiving. Further studies are needed to clarify the suitability of subjects with T1DM to participate in this air sport.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 11/2013; DOI:10.1089/dia.2013.0110 · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A growing number of subjects with diabetes take part in physical activities at altitude such as skiing, climbing, and trekking. Exercise under conditions of hypobaric hypoxia poses some unique challenges on subjects with diabetes, and the presence of diabetes can complicate safe and successful participation in mountain activities. Among others, altitude can alter glucoregulation. Furthermore, cold temperatures and altitude can complicate accurate reading of glucose monitoring equipment and storage of insulin. These factors potentially lead to dangerous hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. Over the last years, more information has become available on this subject.PURPOSE: To provide an up-to-date overview of the pathophysiological changes during physical activity at altitude and the potential problems related to diabetes, including the use of (continuous) blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps. To propose practical recommendations for preparations and travel to altitude for subjects with diabetes.DATA SOURCES AND SYNTHESIS: We researched PubMed, medical textbooks, and related Internet sites, and extracted human studies and data based on relevance for diabetes, exercise, and altitude.LIMITATIONS: Given the paucity of controlled trials regarding diabetes and altitude, we composed a narrative review and filled in areas lacking diabetes-specific studies with data obtained from nondiabetic subjects.CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with diabetes can take part in activities at high, and even extreme, altitude. However, careful assessment of diabetes-related complications, optimal preparation, and adequate knowledge of glycemic regulation at altitude and altitude-related complications is needed.
    Diabetes Care 08/2014; 37(8):2404-2413. DOI:10.2337/dc13-2302 · 8.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study is aimed at comparing the performance of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems following the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's POCT05-A guideline, which provides recommendations for performance evaluation of CGM systems. A total of 12 subjects with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in this study. Each subject wore six CGM systems in parallel, two sensors of each CGM system [FreeStyle Navigator™ (Navigator), MiniMed Guardian® REAL-Time with Enlite sensor (Guardian), DexCom™ Seven® Plus 3rd generation (Seven Plus)]. Each sensor was used for the lifetime specified by the manufacturer. To follow POCT05-A recommendations, glucose excursions were induced on two separate occasions, and venous and capillary blood glucose (BG) concentrations were obtained every 15 min for five consecutive hours. Capillary BG concentrations were measured at least once per hour during the day and once at night. Parameters investigated were CGM-to-BG differences [mean absolute relative difference (MARD)] and sensor-to-sensor differences [precision absolute relative difference (PARD)]. Compared with capillary BG reference readings, the Navigator showed the lowest MARD, with 12.1% overall and 24.6% in the hypoglycemic range; for the Guardian and the Seven Plus, MARD was 16.2%/34.9% and 16.3%/32.7%, respectively. PARD also was lowest for the Navigator (9.6%/9.8%), followed by the Seven Plus (16.7%/25.5%) and the Guardian (18.1%/20.2%). During induced glucose excursions, MARD between CGM and BG was, again, lowest for the Navigator (14.3%), followed by the Seven Plus (15.8%) and the Guardian (19.2%). In this study, two sensors of each of the three CGM systems were compared in a setting following POCT05-A recommendations. The Navigator CGM system achieved more accurate results than the Guardian or the Seven Plus with respect to MARD and PARD. Performance in the hypoglycemic range was markedly worse for all CGM systems when compared with BG results.
    Journal of diabetes science and technology 01/2013; 7(4):842-53.


Available from
May 15, 2014