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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The new EIS includes a new H-cap connector and tubing with new fluid path design that improve insulin preservative retention and stability.
“Iterative advancements relative to earlier IIS devices designed for 2 to 3 days of wear included a new H-cap connector and tubing with new fluid path design that improve insulin preservative retention and stability,12”
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 [12]
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- ILANY, J., COHEN, O., KONVALINA, N., ZHANG, G., & CHATTARAJ, S.
- Affiliations
- Ramat Gan, Israel, Tolochenaz, Switzerland, Northridge, CA
- Venue
- Diabetes
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- 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