Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Performance in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis.
Rigon, Fernanda Augustini; Ronsoni, Marcelo Fernando; Hohl, Alexandre; Vianna, André Gustavo Daher; Sande-Lee, Simone van de; Schiavon, Leonardo de Lucca.
Afiliação
  • Rigon FA; Graduate Program in Medical Sciences, Polydoro Ernani de São Thiago University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  • Ronsoni MF; Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  • Hohl A; Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  • Vianna AGD; Curitiba Diabetes Center, Department of Endocrine Diseases, Hospital Nossa Senhora das Graças, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Sande-Lee SV; Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
  • Schiavon LL; Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; : 19322968241232686, 2024 Mar 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38439562
ABSTRACT

AIM:

To evaluate the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC).

METHODS:

Observational study including 30 outpatients with LC (Child-Pugh B/C) 10 without diabetes (DM) (G1), 10 with newly diagnosed DM by oral glucose tolerance test (G2), and 10 with a previous DM diagnosis (G3). isCGM (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was used for 56 days (four sensors/patient). Blood tests were performed at baseline and after 28 and 56 days.

RESULTS:

No differences were found in the baseline characteristics, except for higher age in G3. There were significant differences between G1, G2 and G3 in glucose management indicator (GMI) (5.28 ± 0.17, 6.03 ± 0.59, 6.86 ± 1.08%, P < .001), HbA1c (4.82 ± 0.39, 5.34 ± 1.26, 6.97 ± 1.47%, P < .001), average glucose (82.79 ± 7.06, 113.39 ± 24.32, 149.14 ± 45.31mg/dL, P < .001), time in range (TIR) (70.89 ± 9.76, 80.2 ± 13.55, 57.96 ± 17.96%, P = .006), and glucose variability (26.1 ± 5.0, 28.21 ± 5.39, 35.31 ± 6.85%, P = .004). There was discordance between GMI and HbA1c when all groups were considered together, with a mean difference of 0.35% (95% SD 0.17, 0.63). In G1, the mean difference was 0.46% (95% SD 0.19, 0.73) and in G2 0.69% (95% SD 0.45, 1.33). GMI and HbA1c were concordant in G3, with a mean difference of -0.10 % (95% SD [-0.59, 0.38]).

CONCLUSION:

Disagreements were found between the GMI and HbA1c levels in patients with LC. isCGM was able to detect abnormalities in glycemic control that would not be detected by monitoring with HbA1c, suggesting that isCGM can be useful in assessing glycemic control in patients with LC.
Palavras-chave
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Diabetes Sci Technol Assunto da revista: ENDOCRINOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Diabetes Sci Technol Assunto da revista: ENDOCRINOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Estados Unidos