Use of subcutaneous interstitial fluid glucose to estimate blood glucose: Revisiting delay and sensor offset

116Citations
Citations of this article
139Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Estimates for delays in the interstitial fluid (ISF) glucose response to changes in blood glucose (BG) differ substantially among research groups. We review these findings along with arguments that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices used to measure ISF delay contribute to the variability. We consider the impact of the ISF delay and review approaches to correct for it, including strategies pursued by the manufacturers of these devices. The focus on how the manufacturers have approached the problem is motivated by the observation that clinicians and researchers are often unaware of how the existing CGM devices process the ISF glucose signal. Methods: Numerous models and simulations were used to illustrate problems related to measurement and correction of ISF glucose delay. Results: We find that (1) there is no evidence that the true physiologic ISF glucose delay is longer than 5-10 min and that the values longer than this can be explained by delays in CGM filtering routines; (2) the primary impact of the true ISF delay is on sensor calibration algorithms, making it difficult to estimate calibration factors and offset (OS) currents; (3) inaccurate estimates of the sensor OS current result in overestimation of sensor glucose at low values, making it difficult to detect hypoglycemia; (4) many device companies introduce nonlinear components into their filters, which can be expected to confound attempts by investigators to reconstruct BG using linear deconvolution; and (5) algorithms advocated by academic groups are seldom compared to algorithms pursued by industry, making it difficult to ascertain their value. Conclusions: The absence of any direct comparisons between existing and new algorithms for correcting ISF delay and sensor OS current is, in part, due to the difficulty in extracting relevant details from industry patents and/or extracting unfiltered sensor signals from industry products. The model simulation environment, where all aspects of the signal can be derived, may be more appropriate for developing new filtering and calibration strategies. Nevertheless, clinicians, academic researchers, and the industry would benefit from collaborating when evaluating those strategies.© Diabetes Technology Society.

References Powered by Scopus

In silico preclinical trials: A proof of concept in closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes

629Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Timing of Changes in Interstitial and Venous Blood Glucose Measured with a Continuous Subcutaneous Glucose Sensor

356Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Subcutaneous glucose predicts plasma glucose independent of insulin: Implications for continuous monitoring

349Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The Performance and Usability of a Factory-Calibrated Flash Glucose Monitoring System

564Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A Swellable Microneedle Patch to Rapidly Extract Skin Interstitial Fluid for Timely Metabolic Analysis

377Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Biocompatible materials for continuous glucose monitoring devices

293Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rebrin, K., Sheppard, N. F., & Steil, G. M. (2010). Use of subcutaneous interstitial fluid glucose to estimate blood glucose: Revisiting delay and sensor offset. In Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (Vol. 4, pp. 1087–1098). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681000400507

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2506121824

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 57

71%

Researcher 17

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

1%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 35

51%

Medicine and Dentistry 20

29%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8

12%

Computer Science 6

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0