Family Perceptions of Insulin Pump Adverse Events in Children and Adolescents
Abstract
Background: Insulin pumps (for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) are used widely in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Although there has been considerable study of outcomes, there are few recent data on CSII-associated adverse events and no data on family perceptions of adverse events and their confidence in dealing with them. Subjects and Methods: We approached all families of children and adolescents ≤19 years of age on CSII attending the diabetes clinic over a 16-week clinic cycle. Participants completed a retrospective questionnaire examining issues over the previous 12 months. Data on pump adverse events as well as answers to questions pertaining to education and confidence were collected. Results: Our survey received a response rate of 99%, with 235 of the 238 families approached participating. In the preceding 12 months, 104 of 230 (45%) had reported at least one pump-related adverse event (either mechanical or set-related), with an associated 52 of 229 (23%) resulting in pump replacement. This equated to a minimum incidence density of 53 adverse events/100 person-years. Additionally, 18 of 230 (8%) reported a hospital admission or emergency department attendance as a consequence. Pump malfunction and infusion set/site failures were the most common events reported, with one or more events in 58 of 104 (56%) and 47 of 104 (45%), respectively. Adverse events, excluding set/site failures, were associated with older age (13.1±3.4 years vs. 11.9±4 years; P =0.02). Conclusions: This is the first study to look at family perceptions of adverse events while using modern CSII. It highlights a high self-reported rate of CSII-related adverse events, pump replacement, and subsequent presentation to the hospital. Potential areas for additional targeted education are identified. Further prospective study examining pump adverse event characteristics and incidence is warranted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Problems with infusion sets continue to be a major contributor to diabetes-related adverse events.
“Problems with infusion sets continue to be a major contributor to diabetes-related adverse events 34-36”
From Real-Time Detection of Infusion Site Failures in a Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas (2018) · cites this paper as [35]
Cites
Bolli, G. B., Kerr, D., Thomas, R., Torlone, E., Sola-Gazagnes, A., Vitacolonna, E., Selam, J. L., & Home, P. D. (2009) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc08-1874 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Durability of Insulin Pump Use in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes
Wood, J. R., Moreland, E. C., Volkening, L. K., Svoren, B. M., Butler, D. A., & Laffel, L. M. B. (2006) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc06-1141 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Insulin pump-associated adverse events in children and adolescents–a prospective study
Wheeler, B. J., Heels, K., Donaghue, K. C., Reith, D. M., & Ambler, G. R. (2014) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2013.0388 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citationReal-Time Detection of Infusion Site Failures in a Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas
Howsmon, D. P., Baysal, N., Buckingham, B. A., Forlenza, G. P., Ly, T. T., Maahs, D. M., Marcal, T., Towers, L., Mauritzen, E., Deshpande, S., et al. (2018) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/1932296818755173 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wheeler, B. J., Donaghue, K. C., Heels, K., & Ambler, G. R.
- Affiliations
- The Institute of Endocrinology and Diabetes
- Venue
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 204-207
- ISSN
- 1520-9156
- 1557-8593
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review