6521 Continuation of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Hospitalized Diabetic Patients Decreased the Incidence of Hypoglycemia

Abstract Disclosure: C.E. DeClue: None. S. Bao: None. Objective: Glycemic control improves patient outcomes in hospitalized patients, and this is generally achieved by monitoring point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose levels. In the outpatient setting, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have shown improved glycemic control in diabetic patients, but their evidence in hospitalized patients is lacking. Methods: To evaluate CGM accuracy and safety of use in the inpatient setting, 567 consults were analyzed in a single-center inpatient diabetes service between November 2022 and January 2023. Patients were included if managed with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy and separated into four groups based on CGM continuation and type of diabetes. POC glucose and incidence of hypoglycemia were recorded over 72 hours from the time of consultation. Results: Forty-six Type-1 (T1DM) and 72 Type-2 (T2DM) diabetic patients were included in this study, with average hemoglobin A1c of 8.6% and 9.0%, respectively. Both diabetic groups showed an average POC glucose that was not statistically different based on CGM continuation (185 mg/dL for T1DM and 187 mg/dL for T2DM continued on CGM versus 183 mg/dL for T1DM and 188 mg/dL for T2DM not using CGM). However, only 2 of the 18 T1DM patients continued on CGM experienced hypoglycemia, whereas 17 of the 28 T1DM patients not using CGM experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event. Similarly, only 2 of the 20 T2DM patients continued on CGM experienced hypoglycemia, whereas 13 of the 52 patients not using CGM experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event. Additionally, less glucose variability was observed in both T1DM and T2DM patients continued on CGM (average standard deviation of 64 mg/dL and 55 mg/dL, respectively) compared to those not using CGM (average standard deviation of 84 mg/dL and 62 mg/dL, respectively). Conclusion: CGM has great potential to improve patient care and nursing workload in the hospital, but the safety and accuracy are not yet well-established. In this study, there seemed to be a statistically insignificant trend to less glycemic variability for CGM users despite no glycemic difference on average POC testing. Importantly, significantly fewer hypoglycemic events were observed in patients continued on CGM devices regardless of type of diabetes or baseline glycemic control. This study adds further evidence to the growing body of work supporting improved safety of CGM utilization in hospitalized diabetic patients. Presentation: 6/1/2024

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Endocrine Society
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvae163.717
Primary Topic
Diabetes Management and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

6521 Continuation of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Hospitalized Diabetic Patients Decreased the Incidence of Hypoglycemia

Cory DeClue, Shichun Bao
Journal of the Endocrine Society
Diabetes Management and Research
article

6521 Continuation of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Hospitalized Diabetic Patients Decreased the Incidence of Hypoglycemia

Cory DeClue, Shichun Bao
article en

Abstract

Abstract Disclosure: C.E. DeClue: None. S. Bao: None. Objective: Glycemic control improves patient outcomes in hospitalized patients, and this is generally achieved by monitoring point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose levels. In the outpatient setting, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have shown improved glycemic control in diabetic patients, but their evidence in hospitalized patients is lacking. Methods: To evaluate CGM accuracy and safety of use in the inpatient setting, 567 consults were analyzed in a single-center inpatient diabetes service between November 2022 and January 2023. Patients were included if managed with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy and separated into four groups based on CGM continuation and type of diabetes. POC glucose and incidence of hypoglycemia were recorded over 72 hours from the time of consultation. Results: Forty-six Type-1 (T1DM) and 72 Type-2 (T2DM) diabetic patients were included in this study, with average hemoglobin A1c of 8.6% and 9.0%, respectively. Both diabetic groups showed an average POC glucose that was not statistically different based on CGM continuation (185 mg/dL for T1DM and 187 mg/dL for T2DM continued on CGM versus 183 mg/dL for T1DM and 188 mg/dL for T2DM not using CGM). However, only 2 of the 18 T1DM patients continued on CGM experienced hypoglycemia, whereas 17 of the 28 T1DM patients not using CGM experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event. Similarly, only 2 of the 20 T2DM patients continued on CGM experienced hypoglycemia, whereas 13 of the 52 patients not using CGM experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event. Additionally, less glucose variability was observed in both T1DM and T2DM patients continued on CGM (average standard deviation of 64 mg/dL and 55 mg/dL, respectively) compared to those not using CGM (average standard deviation of 84 mg/dL and 62 mg/dL, respectively). Conclusion: CGM has great potential to improve patient care and nursing workload in the hospital, but the safety and accuracy are not yet well-established. In this study, there seemed to be a statistically insignificant trend to less glycemic variability for CGM users despite no glycemic difference on average POC testing. Importantly, significantly fewer hypoglycemic events were observed in patients continued on CGM devices regardless of type of diabetes or baseline glycemic control. This study adds further evidence to the growing body of work supporting improved safety of CGM utilization in hospitalized diabetic patients. Presentation: 6/1/2024

Journal of the Endocrine SocietyVol. 8(Supplement_1)
Vanderbilt University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Diabetes Management and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.