Diabetes & metabolism · 2025
"Usefulness of continuous interstitial glucose in diabetic patient undergoing hemodialysis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Berchoux Elise, Szwarc Ilan, Bonnet Jean-Baptiste, Pissarra Joana, Avignon Antoine, Jugant Sébastien, Le Quintrec Moglie, Sultan Ariane
Аннотация
BACKGROUNG: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) undergoing hemodialysis (HD), glycemic control is challenging, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is often unreliable due to altered red blood cell turnover, anemia, and treatments such as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides additional metrics-such as time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), and glycemic variability-that may better reflect glucose control in this population. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of 14-day CGM data compared to HbA1c in evaluating glycemic control in T2D patients on HD.
METHODS: This is a prospective and multicenter study. Patients included were of > 18 years, DM2, and hemodialysis patients. We assessed glycemic control of diabetic hemodialysis patient over 14 days with the CGM freestyle 1 comparing to HbA1c.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included. While 68 % had HbA1c < 8 %, only 21 % met the CGM targets (P < 0.005). Mean glucose levels were significantly lower on dialysis days (-13 mg/dl, P < 0.0001), without an increase in hypoglycemic episodes. Discrepancies between HbA1c and CGM metrics were associated with diabetes-related nephropathy and longer duration of HD.
CONCLUSION: HbA1c alone may substantially underestimate glycemic burden in patients on hemodialysis. CGM provides a more accurate assessment of glucose control and reveals undetected hypo- and hyperglucose levels. Incorporating CGM into routine care may improve diabetes management and therapeutic decision-making in this high-risk population.
METHODS: This is a prospective and multicenter study. Patients included were of > 18 years, DM2, and hemodialysis patients. We assessed glycemic control of diabetic hemodialysis patient over 14 days with the CGM freestyle 1 comparing to HbA1c.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included. While 68 % had HbA1c < 8 %, only 21 % met the CGM targets (P < 0.005). Mean glucose levels were significantly lower on dialysis days (-13 mg/dl, P < 0.0001), without an increase in hypoglycemic episodes. Discrepancies between HbA1c and CGM metrics were associated with diabetes-related nephropathy and longer duration of HD.
CONCLUSION: HbA1c alone may substantially underestimate glycemic burden in patients on hemodialysis. CGM provides a more accurate assessment of glucose control and reveals undetected hypo- and hyperglucose levels. Incorporating CGM into routine care may improve diabetes management and therapeutic decision-making in this high-risk population.