4.3 Article

Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI) in paediatric Type 1 diabetes: a multicentre matched-pair cohort analysis over 3 years

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 80-85

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02311.x

关键词

children; CSII; HbA(1c); intensive therapy; Type 1 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To conduct a multicentre, matched-pair cohort analysis comparing glycaemic control and adverse events of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injections (MDI) in paediatric patients. Methods Using standardized computer-based prospective documentation, HbA(1c), insulin dose, body mass index-standard deviation score (BMI-SDS), rate of hypoglycaemia, rate of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and intensity of care were analysed in 434 matched pairs during a follow-up period of 3 years after initiation of MDI or CSII. Results HbA(1c) was significantly lower in the CSII group during the first year of new regimen (CSII 7.5 +/- 0.05 vs. MDI 7.7 +/- 0.06; P < 0.05), but rose to the same level as in the MDI group during year 3. Insulin requirement remained significantly lower in the CSII group. The BMI-SDS increased in both study groups, with no significant difference. The rate of severe hypoglycaemia decreased significantly after the change of regimen (CSII 17.87 +/- 2.85 vs. MDI 25.14 +/- 3.79; P < 0.05) and during year 3 of the regimen, particularly when compared with baseline (-21% vs. -16%). The rate of DKA was lower at baseline in the CSII group and remained significantly lower over all 3 years. Intensity of care was the same in both subsets. Conclusions Employing a large cohort, this matched-pair analysis has demonstrated over a 3-year study period that CSII is a safe form of intensive insulin therapy with similar glycaemic effects, but with significantly reduced rates of hypoglycaemia and DKA and a lower insulin requirement when compared with MDI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据