A Prospective Study of Insulin Infusion Set Use for up to 7 Days: Early Replacement Reasons and Impact on Glycemic Control
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
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?
Few randomized studies have reported failure and survival rates when IIS devices are worn out to 7 days.
“few randomized studies have reported failure and survival rates when IIS devices are worn out to 7 days.8,9”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Prior rates of IIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia ranged from 19% to 30%.
“rates of IIS failure due to “unexplained hyperglycemia” (i.e., hyperglycemia >250 mg/dL and a failed correction bolus due to suspected IIS occlusion) ranged from a relatively high 19%9 to 30%.8”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Prior overall findings determined that 7-day wear, irrespective of steel or Teflon cannula, did not adversely influence glycemic control.
“Overall findings from the latter determined that 7-day wear (irrespective of steel or Teflon cannula) did not adversely influence glycemic control”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Some of the aforementioned studies reported that standard IIS survival appeared to depend heavily on the individual user, as ∼42% of Patel et al.'s study participants were able to wear an IIS for 6-7 days and 75% of those in Waldenmaier et al.'s study wore at least one standard IIS for 7 days.
“Interestingly, some of the aforementioned studies reported that standard IIS survival appeared to depend heavily on the individual user, as ∼42% of the Patel et al.'s study participants were able to wear an IIS for 6–7 days and 75% of those in Waldenmaier et al.'s study wore at least one standard IIS for 7 days.”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
While early standard IIS device studies confirmed manufacturer indications for 2- to 3-day use due to increased risk of IIS site reactions or compromised glycemic control, more recent studies with greater numbers of study participants have reported minimal or no issues with glycemia over time or fewer adverse events associated with extended IIS wear.
“Thus, while early standard IIS device studies confirmed manufacturer indications for 2- to 3-day use due to increased risk of IIS site reactions or compromised glycemic control, more recent studies with greater numbers of study participants have reported minimal or no issues with glycemia over time or fewer adverse events associated with extended IIS wear.8,9,18,19”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
The overall EIS survival rate by the end of day 7 was greater than previously reported survival rates for standard IIS devices worn for similar durations (69%, 63%, 43%, 33%, and 32%).
“The overall EIS survival rate of 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2–79.3) by the end of day 7 was greater than previously reported survival rates of 69% (n = 40 total participants and 80 total steel cannula sets),9 63% (n = 40 total participants, 80 total soft cannula sets),9 43% (n = 20 total participants, 40 total sets in non-lipohypertrophied tissue),18 33% (n = 20 total participants and 40 total sets in lipo”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia or both unexplained hyperglycemia and device-related SevHyper was substantially lower than the 19%, 23%, 30%, and 35% reported to be attributable or partly attributable to unexplained hyperglycemia in studies investigating extended standard IIS wear.
“The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia or both unexplained hyperglycemia and device-related SevHyper was quite low (≤2%) and substantially lower than the 19%,9 23%,18 30%,8 and 35%18 reported to be attributable or partly attributable to unexplained hyperglycemia in the studies investigating extended standard IIS wear.”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
In Waldenmaier et al.'s study, participants could use an accompanying insertion device, and no issues with kinking at IIS insertion were reported.
“While a different Teflon-cannula IIS device (YpsoPump™ Orbit™ soft infusion set [Ypsomed AG, Burgdorf, Switzerland]) was used in Waldenmaier et al.'s study, participants could use an accompanying insertion device, and no issues with kinking at IIS insertion were reported.9”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
There were multiple definitions of a failed correction dose, with 1 h or 60-90 min as the elapsed time by when a single correction dose was required to decrease BG by 50 mg/dL.
“There were also multiple definitions of a failed correction dose where 1 h8,18 or 60–90 min9 was the elapsed time by when a single correction dose was required to decrease BG by 50 mg/dL.”
From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Nonmetabolic Complications of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion: A Patient Survey
Pickup, J. C., Yemane, N., Brackenridge, A., & Pender, S. (2014) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2013.0192 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Schmid, V., Hohberg, C., Borchert, M., Forst, T., & Pfützner, A. (2010) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/193229681000400429 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Randomized Trial of Infusion Set Function: Steel Versus Teflon
Patel, P. J., Benasi, K., Ferrari, G., Evans, M. G., Shanmugham, S., Wilson, D. M., & Buckingham, B. A. (2014) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2013.0119 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Pfützner, A., Sachsenheimer, D., Grenningloh, M., Heschel, M., Walther-Johannesen, L., Gharabli, R., & Klonoff, D. (2015) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/1932296815604438 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Occlusion Detection Time in Insulin Pumps at Two Different Basal Rates
Freckmann, G., Kamecke, U., Waldenmaier, D., Haug, C., & Ziegler, R. (2018) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/1932296817750404 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brazg, R., Garg, S. K., Bhargava, A., Thrasher, J. R., Latif, K., Bode, B. W., Bailey, T. S., Horowitz, B. S., Cavale, A., Kudva, Y. C., et al. (2022) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2021.0540 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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