997-P: Testing a Novel Infusion Set for Extended Wear Duration
Abstract
This was a randomized double blinded study of a novel infusion set with and without heparin, hypothesizing that small doses of heparin would decrease thrombosis and subcutaneous inflammation. The MiniMed™ Quick-set™ infusion set was modified with a new tubing connector from current P-Cap. The P-Cap was modified to contain a foam (F) or a foam with heparin (F+H) connector. Visibly the sets appeared identical. Each participant wore two F and two F + H sets for 7 days or until set failure. The order of infusion set wear was randomly assigned. Infusion set failure was determined by unexplained hyperglycemia >250mg/dL with a failed correction dose, ketones >0.6mmol/L, evidence of infection, occlusion alarms, or adhesive failure. Infused set survival was compared to similar published 1-week studies using standard Quick-sets. There were 20 participants (mean age 29.5±8 years). Each set was worn 40 times. Length of wear and causes of failure are shown below. Length of wear was not different between the F and F+H groups, but both had improved length of wear compared to historical Quick-sets (p<0.05). There was no significant increase in insulin requirements or mean glucose values throughout the seven days of wear in any group. There was no difference in overall duration of wear between the F and F+H groups. Both infusion set groups intended for extended wear had significantly better survival than the historical Quick-Set™ group. Further studies are planned with the F group. Disclosure: B.A. Buckingham: Advisory Panel; Self; ConvaTec Inc., Medtronic. Research Support; Self; Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care. T. Marcal: None. L. Hoffman: None. G. Musolino: None. L. Ekhlaspour: None. G. Zhang: None. S. Chattaraj: Employee; Self; Medtronic. Funding: Medtronic Diabetes
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?
Sample size estimation was based on previously published single-center data.
“Sample size estimation was based on previously published single-center data.14”
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 [14]
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- BUCKINGHAM, B. A., MARCAL, T., HOFFMAN, L., MUSOLINO, G., EKHLASPOUR, L., ZHANG, G., & CHATTARAJ, S.
- Affiliations
- Palo Alto, CA, Northridge, CA, Varese, Italy, Stanford, CA
- Venue
- Diabetes
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2020-06-01
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- Supplement_1
- ISSN
- 0012-1797
- 1939-327X
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- 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