Navigating Airport Security with an Insulin Pump and/or Sensor
Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver , Aurora, Colorado.Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 2.11). 10/2012; 14(11). DOI: 10.1089/dia.2012.0220
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "For customs, carriage of medication in original packaging is advised along with a letter from the prescribing physician. Airport security X-ray machines are not considered harmful to insulin itself, but these or airport body scanners might damage insulin pumps or continuous glucose monitors, which should be removed and checked manually (Cornish and Chase, 2012). Security now commonly requires separate manual presentation of liquids to staff for examination. "
ABSTRACT: Abstract Richards, Paul, and David Hillebrandt. Clinicians Corner: The practical aspects of insulin at high altitude. High Alt Med Biol 14:197-204, 2013.-With the increasing prevalence of diabetes and current social philosophy of enablement, many more diabetics are travelling to high altitude where the rate of AMS in Type 1 diabetic mountaineers is no different than nondiabetics. Numerous effects of exercise, both degree and duration, dietary change, illness, stress, mountain sickness, counter-regulatory hormones, and altitude increased sympathetic output, and catecholamines have led to conflicting accounts of insulin requirement increasing or decreasing at altitude. Overall, it would appear that the effects of diet and exercise outweigh those of altitude. Good control requires continual insulin dose adjustment with frequent feedback from blood sugar testing, but glucometers can over- or under-read at altitude. Additionally, heat or cold exposure can degrade insulin efficacy; strategies for storing insulin are described.High altitude medicine & biology 09/2013; 14(3):197-204. DOI:10.1089/ham.2013.1020 · 1.28 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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.Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 03/2012; 14(6):527-32. DOI:10.1089/dia.2011.0284 · 2.11 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.