oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Continuous glucose monitoring: a study of the Enlite sensor during hypo- and hyperbaric conditions
Gothenburg Pediatric Growth Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy,University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Swedish Sports Diving Federation, Farsta, Sweden.
Hyperbaric Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden.
Medtronic Diabetes (Sensor R&D), Northridge CA, USA.
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, ISSN 1520-9156, E-ISSN 1557-8593, Vol. 14, no 6, p. 527-532Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: 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.

Materials and Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New Rochelle, USA: Mary Ann Liebert, 2012. Vol. 14, no 6, p. 527-532
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences Endocrinology and Diabetes
Research subject
Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-27350DOI: 10.1089/dia.2011.0284ISI: 000304788400014PubMedID: 22428621Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84861984135OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-27350DiVA, id: diva2:603498
Available from: 2013-02-06 Created: 2013-02-06 Last updated: 2018-05-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Jendle, Johan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jendle, Johan
By organisation
School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden
In the same journal
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Medical and Health SciencesEndocrinology and Diabetes

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 806 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf