Extensive assessment of blood glucose monitoring during postprandial period and its impact on closed-loop performance

[EN] Background: Closed-loop (CL) systems aims to outperform usual treatments in blood glucose control and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are a key component in such systems. Meals represents one of the main disturbances in blood glucose control, and postprandial period (PP) is a challenging situ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Biagi, L., Hirata-Bertachi, A., Conget, I., Quirós, C., Giménez, M., Ampudia-Blasco, F.J., Rossetti, P., Vehí, J., Bondía Company, Jorge|||0000-0001-7286-3719
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2017
País:España
Institución:Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)
Repositorio:RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/148242
Acceso en línea:https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/148242
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Accuracy
Closed-loop control
Continuous glucose monitoring
Postprandial period
Type 1 diabetes
INGENIERIA DE SISTEMAS Y AUTOMATICA
Descripción
Sumario:[EN] Background: Closed-loop (CL) systems aims to outperform usual treatments in blood glucose control and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are a key component in such systems. Meals represents one of the main disturbances in blood glucose control, and postprandial period (PP) is a challenging situation for both CL system and CGM accuracy. Methods: We performed an extensive analysis of sensor¿s performance by numerical accuracy and precision during PP, as well as its influence in blood glucose control under CL therapy. Results: During PP the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for both sensors presented lower accuracy in the hypoglycemic range (19.4 ± 12.8%) than in other ranges (12.2 ± 8.6% in euglycemic range and 9.3 ± 9.3% in hyperglycemic range). The overall MARD was 12.1 ± 8.2%. We have also observed lower MARD for rates of change between 0 and 2 mg/dl. In CL therapy, the 10 trials with the best sensor spent less time in hypoglycemia (PG < 70 mg/dl) than the 10 trials with the worst sensors (2 ± 7 minutes vs 32 ± 38 minutes, respectively). Conclusions: In terms of accuracy, our results resemble to previously reported. Furthermore, our results showed that sensors with the lowest MARD spent less time in hypoglycemic range, indicating that the performance of CL algorithm to control PP was related to sensor accuracy.