Cited by 21

A Prospective Study of Insulin Infusion Set Use for up to 7 Days: Early Replacement Reasons and Impact on Glycemic Control

Waldenmaier, Delia, Zschornack, Eva, Buhr, Andreas, Pleus, Stefan, Haug, Cornelia, Freckmann, Guido·2020·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background: There is limited evidence supporting a replacement interval of infusion sets for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The aim of this study was to investigate if steel and soft cannula infusion sets can be used in CSII therapy for up to 7 days without negative impact on infusion sites or glycemic control. Methods: The insulin infusion sets YpsoPump ® Orbit ® micro (steel needle) and YpsoPump ® Orbit ® soft (soft cannula) were each used for up to 7 days by 40 adult subjects with CSII. Each subject used both infusion set types twice. Early replacement reasons were documented and glycemic control was monitored. Results: Of 160 inserted insulin infusion sets, 66% were used for 7 days with no obvious difference between steel and soft infusion sets. The mean wearing time was 6.2 ± 1.5 days. Main reasons for early infusion set replacements were occlusions (19%), plaster issues (4%), and accidental pull-out (4%). Comparing glycemic control during day 1–3 and 1–7, mean glucose was 146 ± 21 mg/dL versus 148 ± 18 mg/dL, coefficient of variation was 34% ± 7% versus 33% ± 5%, and insulin dose was 40 ± 11 U versus 41 ± 11 U. Only mild and nonserious infusion site reactions occurred. Conclusions: In this study, 7 days indwelling time of insulin infusion sets did not show a clinically relevant impact on glycemic control or insulin requirements and the infectious risk appeared to be low. The replacement interval of infusion sets may be individualized beyond the currently labeled maximum use duration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2019.0445

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waldenmaier, D., Zschornack, E., Buhr, A., Pleus, S., Haug, C., & Freckmann, G.
Affiliations
  • Institut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Ypsomed AG, Burgdorf, Switzerland.
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2020-10
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
734-741
ISSN
  • 1520-9156
  • 1557-8593
Cited by
21
References
5
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