Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring during exercise-related hypoglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Background: Hypoglycemia is common in individuals with type 1 diabetes, especially during exercise. We investigated the accuracy of two different continuous glucose monitoring systems during exercise-related hypoglycemia in an experimental setting. Materials and methods: Fifteen individuals with type 1 diabetes participated in two separate euglycemic-hypoglycemic clamp days (Clamp-exercise and Clamp-rest) including five phases: 1) baseline euglycemia, 2) plasma glucose (PG) decline ± exercise, 3) 15-minute hypoglycemia ± exercise, 4) 45-minute hypoglycemia, and 5) recovery euglycemia. Interstitial PG levels were measured every five minutes, using Dexcom G6 (DG6) and FreeStyle Libre 1 (FSL1). Yellow Springs Instruments 2900 was used as PG reference method, enabling mean absolute relative difference (MARD) assessment for each phase and Clarke error grid analysis for each day. Results: Exercise had a negative effect on FSL1 accuracy in phase 2 and 3 compared to rest (ΔMARD = +5.3 percentage points [(95% CI): 1.6, 9.1] and +13.5 percentage points [6.4, 20.5], respectively). In contrast, exercise had a positive effect on DG6 accuracy during phase 2 and 4 compared to rest (ΔMARD = -6.2 percentage points [-11.2, -1.2] and -8.4 percentage points [-12.4, -4.3], respectively). Clarke error grid analysis showed a decrease in clinically acceptable treatment decisions during Clamp-exercise for FSL1 while a contrary increase was observed for DG6. Conclusion: Physical exercise had clinically relevant impact on the accuracy of the investigated continuous glucose monitoring systems and their ability to accurately detect hypoglycemia.

Glycaemia and cardiac arrhythmias in people with type 1 diabetes: A prospective observational study.

AIM: To investigate the impact of hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia and glycaemic variability on arrhythmia susceptibility in people with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty adults with type 1 diabetes were included in a 12-month observational exploratory study. Daytime and night-time incident rate ratios (IRRs) of arrhythmias were determined for hypoglycaemia (interstitial glucose [IG] <3.9 mmol/L), hyperglycaemia (IG >10.0 mmol/L) and glycaemic variability (standard deviation and coefficient of variation). RESULTS: Hypoglycaemia was not associated with an increased risk of arrhythmias compared with euglycaemia and hyperglycaemia combined (IG ≥ 3.9 mmol/L). However, during daytime, a trend of increased risk of arrhythmias was observed when comparing time spent in hypoglycaemia with euglycaemia (IRR 1.08 [95% CI: 0.99-1.18] per 5 minutes). Furthermore, during daytime, both the occurrence and time spent in hyperglycaemia were associated with an increased risk of arrhythmias compared with euglycaemia (IRR 2.03 [95% CI: 1.21-3.40] and IRR 1.07 [95% CI: 1.02-1.13] per 5 minutes, respectively). Night-time hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia were not associated with the risk of arrhythmias. Increased glycaemic variability was not associated with an increased risk of arrhythmias during daytime, whereas a reduced risk was observed during night-time. CONCLUSIONS: Acute hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia during daytime may increase the risk of arrhythmias in individuals with type 1 diabetes. However, no such associations were found during night-time, indicating diurnal differences in arrhythmia susceptibility.

Sustained heart rate-corrected QT prolongation during recovery from hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes, independently of recovery to hyperglycaemia or euglycaemia.

AIM: To investigate changes in cardiac repolarization abnormalities (heart rate-corrected QT [QTc ] [primary endpoint], T-wave abnormalities) and heart-rate variability measures in people with type 1 diabetes during insulin-induced hypoglycaemia followed by recovery hyperglycaemia versus euglycaemia. METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, 24 individuals with type 1 diabetes underwent two experimental clamps with three steady-state phases during electrocardiographic monitoring: (1) a 45-minute euglycaemic phase (5-8 mmol/L), (2) a 60-minute insulin-induced hypoglycaemic phase (2.5 mmol/L), and (3) 60-minute recovery in either hyperglycaemia (20 mmol/L) or euglycaemia (5-8 mmol/L). RESULTS: All measured markers of arrhythmic risk indicated increased risk during hypoglycaemia. These findings were accompanied by a decrease in vagal tone during both hyperglycaemia and euglycaemia clamps. Compared with baseline, the QTc interval increased during hypoglycaemia, and 63% of the participants exhibited a peak QTc of more than 500 ms. The prolonged QTc interval was sustained during both recovery phases with no difference between recovery hyperglycaemia versus euglycaemia. During recovery, no change from baseline was observed in heart-rate variability measures. CONCLUSIONS: In people with type 1 diabetes, insulin-induced hypoglycaemia prolongs cardiac repolarization, which is sustained during a 60-minute recovery period independently of recovery to hyperglycaemia or euglycaemia. Thus, vulnerability to serious cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death may extend beyond a hypoglycaemic event, regardless of hyperglycaemic or euglycaemic recovery.

Exercise-related hypoglycaemia induces QTc-interval prolongation in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate changes in cardiac repolarisation during exercise-related hypoglycaemia compared to hypoglycaemia induced at rest in people with type 1 diabetes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a randomised crossover study, 15 men with type 1 diabetes underwent two separate hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic-hypoglycaemic clamp experiments during Holter-ECG monitoring. One experiment included a bout of moderate-intensity cycling exercise (60 min) along with declining plasma glucose (PG; Clamp-exercise). In the other experiment, hypoglycaemia was induced with the participants at rest (Clamp-rest). We studied QTc interval, T-peak to T-end (Tpe) interval and hormonal responses during three steady-state phases: (i) baseline (PG 4.0-8.0 mmol/L); (ii) hypoglycaemic phase (PG <3.0 mmol/L); and (iii) recovery phase (PG 4.0-8.0 mmol/L). RESULTS: Both QTc interval and Tpe interval increased significantly from baseline during the hypoglycaemic phase but with no significant difference between test days. These changes were accompanied by an increase in plasma adrenaline and a decrease in plasma potassium on both days. During the recovery phase, ΔQTc interval was longer during Clamp-rest compared to Clamp-exercise, whereas ΔTpe interval remained similar on the two test days. CONCLUSIONS: We found that both exercise-related hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia induced at rest can cause QTc-interval prolongation and Tpe-interval prolongation in people with type 1 diabetes. Thus, both scenarios may increase susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias.

Hypoglycaemia and rebound hyperglycaemia increase left ventricular systolic function in patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate echocardiographic changes during acute hypoglycaemia followed by recovery to hyperglycaemia or euglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, 24 patients with type 1 diabetes took part in two experimental study days, consisting of a hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic phase (5.0-8.0 mmol/L) for 45 minutes followed by a hyperinsulinemic-hypoglycaemic phase (2.5 mmol/L) for 60 minutes, and a recovery phase in either hyperglycaemia (20 mmol/L) or euglycaemia (5.0-8.0 mmol/L) for 60 minutes. Cardiac function was evaluated with echocardiography during each phase. RESULTS: Acute hypoglycaemia increased all markers of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, including LV ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS), GLS rate and peak systolic velocity of mitral annular longitudinal movement (s'; P < 0.001 for all). During the recovery phases, all markers of LV systolic function were increased during hyperglycaemia (P < 0.01 for all), and LVEF and GLS remained increased during euglycaemia (P = 0.0116 and P = 0.0092, respectively). The increment in LVEF during the recovery phase was greater during hyperglycaemia than euglycaemia (P = 0.0046). CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglycaemia, recent hypoglycaemia, and overcorrection of hypoglycaemia to rebound hyperglycaemia increased LV systolic function in type 1 diabetes and may imply consideration of plasma glucose when evaluating LV function in patients with type 1 diabetes. An increase in LV systolic function may cause increased strain on the heart and partly explain the link between hypoglycaemia, high glycaemic variability and cardiovascular disease.