Cited by 4Diabetes Management and ResearchIntravenous Infusion Technology and SafetyPancreatic function and diabetes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

994-P: Clinical Study of a New Extended Wear Infusion Set

Abstract

Objective: Current real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are approved for 7-14 days of wear, whereas insulin infusion sets are indicated for 2-3 days of wear. Development of a closed-loop control system with the same duration of wear for its CGM and insulin infusion consumables necessitates an infusion set with greater longevity. This study assessed the safety and performance of a newly designed Extended Wear Infusion Set (EWIS) for up to 7 days. Method: A single-center feasibility study targeted the recruitment of 26 adult subjects (between 22 and 75 years of age) This was a 1-center, prospective, open label one arm study, with each subject being asked to wear 4 trial devices until the infusion set failed or 7-day use was reached. Result: There were twenty-one participants of whom 20 completed the study, resulting in 82 insertions and 78 wear counts. At 7 days of wear, the overall failure rate for the EWIS was 19.5%, which was comparable to that after 3-day use for a 3-day infusion set (∼23%) (MiniMed™ Quick-set), as previously reported. (Patel et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014; 16:15-19). Over time, EWIS use for 7 days did not significantly increase hyperglycemia (mean SG value Day 3: 150 ± 56 mg/dL; Day 6: 160 ± 50 mg/dL; target < 250 mg/dL) or total daily insulin requirements (TDI at Day 1: 41±17 U/Day; Day 3: 40±17 U/Day; Day 7: 43 ±20 U/Day) There were no events of infusion set blockage or diabetic ketoacidosis during the study. Conclusion: The performance of the EWIS across 7 days of use was equivalent to the performance reported for a 3-day infusion set during 3 days of use. Safety outcomes during EWIS use were acceptable for the intended subcutaneous insulin infusion by an external pump for 7 days. Disclosure: J. Ilany: Research Support; Self; Medtronic. O. Cohen: Employee; Self; Medtronic. N. Konvalina: None. G. Zhang: None. S. Chattaraj: Employee; Self; Medtronic. Funding: Medtronic

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/db20-994-p

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
ILANY, J., COHEN, O., KONVALINA, N., ZHANG, G., & CHATTARAJ, S.
Affiliations
Ramat Gan, Israel, Tolochenaz, Switzerland, Northridge, CA
Venue
Diabetes
Published
2020-06-01
Volume
69
Issue
Supplement_1
ISSN
  • 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-327X
OpenAlex
W3035327305
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Diabetes (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
feedback control, continuous glucose monitoring, subcutaneous insulin infusion, hyperglycemia

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