Skip to main content

Continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: comparison of two different calibration protocols


We evaluated the clinical and numerical accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, in critically ill adults using two different methods of calibration. Studies looking at intensive glucose control have yielded conflicting results with increased rates of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. Availability of accurate real-time glucose information may improve safety and efficacy of glucose control in the critical care unit.


In a randomized prospective trial, paired CGM and reference glucose (hourly arterial blood gas (ABG)) were collected from 24 adults with critical illness (age 60 ± 14 years, BMI 29.6 ± 9.3 kg/m2, APACHE score range 6 to 19) and hyperglycemia (glucose ≥10 mmol/l or treated with intravenous insulin), over 48 hours. In 12 subjects, CGM was force-calibrated at variable 1 to 6 hourly intervals using ABG glucose (FC arm). In the other 12 subjects, the sensor was calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions (1, 2, 10, 24 hours after insertion) using arterial blood and built-in glucometer (MC arm).


Two groups had similar characteristics at baseline. A total of 1,060 CGM/ABG pairs were analyzed and reference glucose ranged from 4.3 to 18.8 mmol/l. Median (IQR) absolute relative deviation was lower in the FC arm (7.0% (3.5, 13.0) vs. 12.8% (6.3, 21.8), FC vs. MC, P 0.001). Similarly, the percentage of points in the Clarke error grid zone A points meeting ISO criteria were higher with FC (87.8% vs. 70.2%). Sensor bias (median (IQR)) was significantly lower in the FC arm (-0.1 (-0.7, 0.4) mmol/l vs. -1.1 (-2.3, -0.1) mmol/l, P 0.001). The median (IQR) interval between calibrations in FC arm was 169 (122, 213) minutes.


CGM accuracy in the MC arm was comparable with accuracy in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Further significant improvements to CGM accuracy in critical care are possible by increasing the frequency of calibrations. Such accurate CGM may provide valuable information to guide insulin therapy in critically ill subjects.


  1. 1.

    Weinstein RL, et al.: Diabetes Care. 2007, 30: 1125-1130. 10.2337/dc06-1602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kovatchev B, et al.: Diabetes Care. 2008, 31: 1160-1164. 10.2337/dc07-2401

    PubMed Central  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to L Leelarathna.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leelarathna, L., English, S., Thabit, H. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: comparison of two different calibration protocols. Crit Care 17, P459 (2013).

Download citation


  • Continuous Glucose Monitoring
  • Critical Care Unit
  • Intensive Glucose Control
  • Apache Score
  • Sensor Bias