Real-World Performance of Personal Continuous Glucose Monitors During Hospitalization

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To assess the accuracy of patients' personal continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) worn in the hospital and accuracy correlation with laboratory values and vital signs and to compare CGM glucometric data with data from published literature and guidelines. <b><i>Method:</i></b> We enrolled adult patients with diabetes mellitus wearing outpatient-inserted CGMs at the time of hospital admission to a noncritical setting. CGM readings were paired within 5 min with point of care (POC) glucometers and laboratory (Lab) blood glucose levels. CGM accuracy was expressed using mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and Clarke Error Grids. CGM accuracy variation with labs and vital signs was analyzed with Spearman's correlation method. <b><i>Results:</i></b> For 188 hospitalizations, we analyzed 3316 CGM-POC pairs from 101 patients (56 with Dexcom® sensors and 45 with Abbott's FreeStyle Libre® sensors) and 771 CGM-Lab pairs for 97 patients. For CGM-POC pairs, MARD was 13.7%, 14.4%, and 11.8% for all sensors, Dexcom, and Libre sensors, respectively. MARD was 22.6% for POC glucose <70 mg/dL. For CGM-Lab pairs, MARD was 13.6%, 12.7%, and 15.4% for all sensors, Dexcom, and Libre sensors, respectively. Of CGM-POC pairs, 98.7% and 98.8% of CGM-Lab pairs were in zones A and B of Error Grid Analysis. There was no correlation between ARD and daily mean arterial blood pressure, hemoglobin level, glomerular filtration rate, and pulse oximetry. CGMs' time below range (TBR), time in range (TIR), and time above range were 2.2% (standard deviation [SD]: 4.7%), 58.7% (SD: 22.5%), and 39.9% (SD: 23.4%), respectively. The coefficient of variation was 31.2%. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Except for hypoglycemia ranges, patients' personal CGMs had adequate accuracy for glucose monitoring in the hospital. Vital signs and Lab values did not interfere with CGM accuracy. The TBR and glucose variability were low, better than outpatient recommendations. TIR was in line with inpatient consensus guidelines, and "glucometrics" were comparable with reports for hospital inserted sensors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2025-04-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0639
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Diabetes Management and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.47
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Real-World Performance of Personal Continuous Glucose Monitors During Hospitalization

Michael Smerina, Tatjana Gavrancic, Ana-Maria Chindris, Jessica R. Wilson et al.
5 citations
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Diabetes Management and Research
6.47
article

Real-World Performance of Personal Continuous Glucose Monitors During Hospitalization

Michael Smerina, Tatjana Gavrancic, Ana-Maria Chindris, Jessica R. Wilson, Michelle C. Perry, Aleksandra Murawska Baptista, Ricardo J. Pagán, Karthik Gnanapandithan, Melissa P. Cortes, Adrian Dumitrascu, Rebecca J. Boone, Răzvan M. Chirilă, David O. Hodge, Launia J. White, Sophia G. Blumenfeld, D. Cruz
article en
5 citations

Abstract

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To assess the accuracy of patients' personal continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) worn in the hospital and accuracy correlation with laboratory values and vital signs and to compare CGM glucometric data with data from published literature and guidelines. <b><i>Method:</i></b> We enrolled adult patients with diabetes mellitus wearing outpatient-inserted CGMs at the time of hospital admission to a noncritical setting. CGM readings were paired within 5 min with point of care (POC) glucometers and laboratory (Lab) blood glucose levels. CGM accuracy was expressed using mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and Clarke Error Grids. CGM accuracy variation with labs and vital signs was analyzed with Spearman's correlation method. <b><i>Results:</i></b> For 188 hospitalizations, we analyzed 3316 CGM-POC pairs from 101 patients (56 with Dexcom® sensors and 45 with Abbott's FreeStyle Libre® sensors) and 771 CGM-Lab pairs for 97 patients. For CGM-POC pairs, MARD was 13.7%, 14.4%, and 11.8% for all sensors, Dexcom, and Libre sensors, respectively. MARD was 22.6% for POC glucose <70 mg/dL. For CGM-Lab pairs, MARD was 13.6%, 12.7%, and 15.4% for all sensors, Dexcom, and Libre sensors, respectively. Of CGM-POC pairs, 98.7% and 98.8% of CGM-Lab pairs were in zones A and B of Error Grid Analysis. There was no correlation between ARD and daily mean arterial blood pressure, hemoglobin level, glomerular filtration rate, and pulse oximetry. CGMs' time below range (TBR), time in range (TIR), and time above range were 2.2% (standard deviation [SD]: 4.7%), 58.7% (SD: 22.5%), and 39.9% (SD: 23.4%), respectively. The coefficient of variation was 31.2%. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Except for hypoglycemia ranges, patients' personal CGMs had adequate accuracy for glucose monitoring in the hospital. Vital signs and Lab values did not interfere with CGM accuracy. The TBR and glucose variability were low, better than outpatient recommendations. TIR was in line with inpatient consensus guidelines, and "glucometrics" were comparable with reports for hospital inserted sensors.

Diabetes Technology & TherapeuticsVol. 27(8)
Jacksonville College (US), Mayo Clinic Hospital (US), Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Diabetes Management and Research
6.47
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.