advertisement

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: CGMS ISIG and Calibration Guidelines

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Thanks Darryl, this has all been very helpful.

    One more question for you, and the community.

    What do you concider "stable"?

    I usually look at the current SG and the previous 2 or 3, and look for a change of no more than 2 -4 over any of the 5 minute periods. MM says anything that's within 20% (I guess of the prior SG) is okay. The example of "unstable" they gave me over the phone was rediculous - a change from 120 - 210.

    I described 2 senarios and asked if one was "better" than the other.

    Senario a) 4 SGs in a row of 110, right before a meal, not having eaten for 3 hours

    Senario b) SGs of 110, 120, 130, 132, right before a meal not having eaten for three hours.

    They said both were equally good. What do you think?
    Steve, Dad to
    Sean age 16 dx 12/27/2006
    Aaron age 15 non-D

    MM Revel 6-6-2011
    MM 523 6-8-11
    MM 522 1-30-08
    MM CGMS 3/27/08
    Guardian (parental monitor) 10/28/2010

    Dexcom G4 3-29-13

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevecu View Post

    What do you concider "stable"?

    I usually look at the current SG and the previous 2 or 3, and look for a change of no more than 2 -4 over any of the 5 minute periods. MM says anything that's within 20% (I guess of the prior SG) is okay. The example of "unstable" they gave me over the phone was rediculous - a change from 120 - 210.

    I described 2 senarios and asked if one was "better" than the other.

    Senario a) 4 SGs in a row of 110, right before a meal, not having eaten for 3 hours

    Senario b) SGs of 110, 120, 130, 132, right before a meal not having eaten for three hours.

    They said both were equally good. What do you think?
    Scenario (a) is obviously ideal, but I'd be OK with (b) as well.

    The change of 120-210 is definitely no good.

    I would say as long as the readings are changing 4 points or less in each of the prior two 5-minute periods,
    then you're OK.

    Also keep in mind, if BG is flat but you just ate, the BG is already changing even though not evident on the CGM.
    Always cal before you eat.

    You will notice that after a cal, the new cal number does not take effect for 15-20 minutes. The CGM compares
    your cal with the SG reading 15 minutes later, and tries to correct for any change that occurred during that time
    interval. When the cal has been successfully updated, it will show in the Calibration History.
    My daughter Leah was dx at age 8. Has used the Omnipod since 2007, Guardian 2007-2013, Dexcom 2007-present and sang the National Anthem at the 2013 JDRF Walk!

    DCCT: The Study That Forever Changed Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes - Improved Glycemic Control in T1 children Using Real-Time CGMS

  3. #23

    Default Cgms

    The whole concept of trying to achieve excessively tight "control" of bg numbers via cgms is a bit ludicrous, since the meters which you use to calibrate are far from precise. This is the standard that meters must meet:

    ISO 15197:2003 Specifies that 95% of glucose results must be within +/- 20% of a reference standard for results greater than or equal to 75mg/dl, and within +/- 15mg/dl for results less than 75mg/dl.

    That bg of 60 might really be 75 - or 45! A reading of 100 may actually be 80 or 120. And 5 tests out of a hundred, the result apparently does not have to have any relationship to the actual bg. The whole thing is just an approximation. Basing treatment decisions on variations of 5 points is just an exercise in futility, at best.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Judith View Post
    The whole concept of trying to achieve excessively tight "control" of bg numbers via cgms is a bit ludicrous, since the meters which you use to calibrate are far from precise. This is the standard that meters must meet:

    ISO 15197:2003 Specifies that 95% of glucose results must be within +/- 20% of a reference standard for results greater than or equal to 75mg/dl, and within +/- 15mg/dl for results less than 75mg/dl.

    That bg of 60 might really be 75 - or 45! A reading of 100 may actually be 80 or 120. And 5 tests out of a hundred, the result apparently does not have to have any relationship to the actual bg. The whole thing is just an approximation. Basing treatment decisions on variations of 5 points is just an exercise in futility, at best.
    Judith,

    Not sure what your background or CGM experience is, but what you said does not reflect reality.

    We're going on nearly 1000 consecutive days of relying on CGMS readings for BG control, and in that time we've
    never had any bad hypos, never had any BG over 279 (and that was more than a year ago), maintained an A1C
    of 5.3%, and Glycomark of 10.2%.

    Of course, some CGM readings are off by 20-30 points but that is well within the margin of error needed to keep
    BG within a near-normal range. Even the worst CGM reading still would normally preclude the kinds of lows (20's)
    or high's (400's) that people sometimes encounter when managing using BG checks.

    In my experience, BG checks are the least effective means of managing diabetes. Here is a simple example:

    If your target is 120, and you measure a BG of 120, what do you do?
    a) If it was 120 rising, you'd increase insulin.
    b) If it was 120 flat, you'd do nothing
    c) If it was 120 falling, you'd decrease insulin or eat carbs.

    So what do you do?
    The problem is with BG checks you have no idea which is the right choice.
    So 2/3 of the time, you make the wrong decision.
    This is why many people find management by BG check to be futile.

    With a CGM, you always know the direction BG is heading, so your treatment decision is at least in the right direction.

    Another way to look at it - would you rather drive a car with a pair of glasses that is slightly foggy, or with your eyes
    closed except for a quick blink every hour?

    Bottom line, the CGM works. Many people can attest to that.
    Last edited by Darryl; 08-06-2009 at 10:50 AM.
    My daughter Leah was dx at age 8. Has used the Omnipod since 2007, Guardian 2007-2013, Dexcom 2007-present and sang the National Anthem at the 2013 JDRF Walk!

    DCCT: The Study That Forever Changed Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes - Improved Glycemic Control in T1 children Using Real-Time CGMS

  5. #25

    Default

    Some meters are more accurate than others. Our Aviva is almost always within one or two points in a recheck, even when he's high. Our One Touch appears to display numbers at random, rather than based on any blood glucose levels.

    Regardless, Darryl's original post is aimed at when to calibrate, not what the actual numbers are. He's looking at the movement of the numbers, not the numbers themselves, which we find to be very, very accurate (once you compensate for the delay). We calibrate the same way Darryl does - we scroll back through to see if there has been more than a 3-4 point change in BG in any of the past few readings. If there has been, we don't cal. If there hasn't been, we do.

    Still, I'm not sure if you dredged up this thread just to get another poke in at Darryl or what, but if you want to attack his tight control, there are many other more appropriate threads in which to do it in. This thread is about his calibration technique, which is spot on, and has been supremely helpful to many, many posters on this board. It's a bit absurd of you to pop in to a year old thread to derail it, when it has nothing to do with your issues with him. This is really getting ridiculous.
    Mom to J., age 13
    Dx 2007 @ age 3
    Medtronic pump and CGM (4/2008-6/2013)
    Tandem t:slim and Dexcom G5 CGM (current)

  6. #26

    Default ????

    My post was not personal re: Darryl. I don't know Darryl. I was simply pointing out that the whole monitoring situation is "only approximate". The tone of your post is very defensive.

    As far as I know, ALL forums (with the exception of neonatal monogenic), ALL threads, are open to everyone in the cwd community.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Judith View Post
    My post was not personal re: Darryl. I don't know Darryl. I was simply pointing out that the whole monitoring situation is "only approximate". The tone of your post is very defensive.

    As far as I know, ALL forums (with the exception of neonatal monogenic), ALL threads, are open to everyone in the cwd community.
    Judith,

    No offense taken - your question was valid.
    Yes, monitoring is approximate, as is any available method of D management.

    The difference is:

    Management by BG is more precise in terms of accuracy, but hugely imprecise in terms of not knowing the trend,
    and therefore often making the wrong treatment decision. Giving insulin on a 120 dropping is a huge problem; whereas
    giving carbs based on a CGM-displayed 120 dropping that is really 100 dropping is just fine.

    CGM monitoring is sufficiently accurate in terms of accuracy, and very accurate in terms of knowing the trend.

    Both methods involce approximation, but management by CGM is generally much better (MUCH better) in terms of the outcome.
    On a side note, reactions to people's posts are generally more favorable if the person has some type of personal identification in their signature.
    My daughter Leah was dx at age 8. Has used the Omnipod since 2007, Guardian 2007-2013, Dexcom 2007-present and sang the National Anthem at the 2013 JDRF Walk!

    DCCT: The Study That Forever Changed Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes - Improved Glycemic Control in T1 children Using Real-Time CGMS

  8. #28

    Default

    Thank-you Darryl, we don't use the MM CGM, so I can't comment on it in particular, but we too find the trending information from our CGM to be incredibly useful in keeping our son safe. We are well aware of meter inaccuracies, and I find that the CGM actually HELPS with reducing the problems that the meters can allow. On more than one occasion I have tested my son and got a reading that differs from the CGM. Then went and tested on a different meter, only to find that the first meter gave a "bad' reading. Sometimes it was a dirty finger or it was still a little wet, or the alcohol swab hadn't dried up, finger had been squeezed, ect...

    BUT I think that the CGM has been a fantastic tool to augment fingersticks, as most people who use a CGM become aware VERY quickly to just how inaccurate some meters are.

    I am thankful , so very very thankful, for our CGM. It makes both my sons life and my life immeasurably better. It gives additional insight to the fingersticks that we take and makes tight control possible... fingersticks are inadequate by them selves for us, we have used the CGM for a year, and day in and day out it has proved its reliability and has been nothing short of AMAZING.
    DS type1 D - 12,
    Dx' 07
    Dexcom & omnipod 08, & CGM in the cloud - 07/14!!!

    "Laughter is the best medicine - unless you have diabetes, then insulin goes pretty high on the list."

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Judith View Post
    My post was not personal re: Darryl. I don't know Darryl. I was simply pointing out that the whole monitoring situation is "only approximate". The tone of your post is very defensive.

    As far as I know, ALL forums (with the exception of neonatal monogenic), ALL threads, are open to everyone in the cwd community.
    They are, but relevance is always appreciated. This thread is about calibration techniques. Your post about "tight control" was really almost completely irrelevant.

    I know you don't know Darryl, but you were previously very aggressive in posting your opinion on his daughter's care. (And have had almost no posts since then.) That's why I was bemused to find you popping up in a thread where he was the OP, a thread that no one has posted in in almost a year, a thread that has nothing to do with tight control, but relates to the proper way to calibrate the MM CGM to offer your opinion (out of nowhere, as it's not the subject of this thread, or wasn't until you piped up) on "tight control."

    If you'd like to rehash that argument, more power to you, but to bring it up in this thread is absurd and a total distraction from the helpfulness of this particular thread.
    Last edited by hawkeyegirl; 08-06-2009 at 06:21 PM.
    Mom to J., age 13
    Dx 2007 @ age 3
    Medtronic pump and CGM (4/2008-6/2013)
    Tandem t:slim and Dexcom G5 CGM (current)

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Judith,

    I did not realize we had conversed before on the topic of CGM usage until Karla pointed it out above. Just as you had asked in that thread, the data I posted shows a "week in the life" of a child with T1 using the latest technology:
    http://forums.childrenwithdiabetes.c...3&postcount=74

    Some weeks are not this good, but most are. It rarely gets much worse than what you see in that graph, with use of a pump, CGM, Apidra, tight alarms, willingness to awaken overnight to adjust blood sugar whenver needed, and a reasonable diet. Before using these tools, every day was 50's and 300's...

    I saw in one of your other posts that you are a pediatric nurse who raised a T1 child from age 8 weeks. However, the tools now available for D management are completely different now vs. 3 years ago. CGMS-based control does work, it works beautifully, it has worked for us for nearly 1,000 days straight without incident.

    What might seem ludicrous in light of experience of the past decades needs to be viewed with an open mind by anyone who has not tried it, especially by the medical community. Unfortunately, many medical professionals in the D industry believe likewise that ISO-standard meter accuracy is all that matters, that +/- 5 points is crucial, but that routine daily BG's of 400 and average BG's of 200 are perfectly acceptable (and the best an infant or small child can achieve). That, IMO, is what I would consider "ludicrous" in the year 2009.
    My daughter Leah was dx at age 8. Has used the Omnipod since 2007, Guardian 2007-2013, Dexcom 2007-present and sang the National Anthem at the 2013 JDRF Walk!

    DCCT: The Study That Forever Changed Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes - Improved Glycemic Control in T1 children Using Real-Time CGMS

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
advertisement