MCG flash versus real time

Authors

  • Adrián Proietti Comprehensive Institute of Diabetes and Applied Technology (IDTA), City of Buenos Aires, Argentina

Keywords:

Flash CGM and Real-Time CGM, Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (Real-Time CGM)

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a key tool for people with diabetes, allowing them to obtain detailed information about their blood glucose levels. There are two main types of CGM: flash continuous glucose monitoring (Flash CGM) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (Real-Time CGM). Summary of Differences Between Flash CGM and Real-Time CGM

Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring (Flash CGM)

  • Reading frequency: does not provide continuous real-time data; the user must scan the sensor with a reader or mobile application to obtain glucose readings.
  • Real-Time Data: does not offer real-time alarms for high or low glucose levels; readings are available only when the sensor is scanned.
  • Sensor duration: sensors typically last between 10 to 14 days, depending on the manufacturer.
  • Data History: stores glucose data for a limited period, usually 8 hours; historical data can be downloaded for later analysis.
  • Usage and Maintenance: generally more economical than real-time CGM systems; requires periodic scans to obtain updated data.

Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (Real-Time CGM)

  • Reading Frequency: provides continuous real-time data with frequent updates, typically every 1-5 minutes.
  • Real-Time Data: offers real-time alarms and alerts for high and low glucose levels; allows the user to take immediate action in response to fluctuations in glucose levels.
  • Sensor Duration: sensors can last between 7 to 14 days, depending on the model and manufacturer.
  • Data History: continuously stores detailed glucose data throughout the sensor's usage period, facilitates detailed analysis of patterns and trends in glucose control.
  • Usage and Maintenance: generally more expensive than Flash CGM due to advanced functionality; may require periodic calibrations (although some newer models are designed to minimize this need).

These systems should be chosen based on their individual characteristics, according to the specific needs of the patient.

Author Biography

Adrián Proietti, Comprehensive Institute of Diabetes and Applied Technology (IDTA), City of Buenos Aires, Argentina

Specialist in Internal Medicine, Endocrinologist, Medical Director

References

I. Visser V, et al. The impact of baseline user characteristics on the benefits of real-time vs. intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type

diabetes: moderator analyses of the ALERTT1 Trial. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2024;18(3):660-666. doi:10.1177/19322968221128315.

II. Tumminia A, Crimi S, Sciacca L, et al. Efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control and glucose variability in type 1 diabetic patients

treated with either insulin pumps or multiple insulin injection therapy: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015;31(1):61-68.

III. Visser MM, Charleer S, Fieuws S, et al. Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a

-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397:2275-2283.

IV. Stimson RH, Dover AR, Ritchie SA, et al. HbA1c response and hospital admissions following commencement of flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 1

diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020;8(1):e001292.

Published

2024-10-01

How to Cite

Proietti, A. (2024). MCG flash versus real time. Journal of the Argentine Society of Diabetes, 58(3Sup), 63–63. Retrieved from https://revistasad.com/index.php/diabetes/article/view/1092

Issue

Section

Symposiums part 18

Most read articles by the same author(s)