Duration of Catheter Use in Patients with Diabetes Using Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing proportions of patients with diabetes use continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy mostly due to its clinical efficacy and flexibility for insulin dosing and adjustments. Some challenges are nevertheless associated with this technology. A key and underlooked component of CSII technical difficulties is the subcutaneous catheter used to infuse insulin. Several adverse events (AEs) have been experienced by patients in relation to catheters, such as blockage, kinking, and insertion site reactions, including irritation, infections, lipohypertrophies etc., all of which could compromise the metabolic control. With the objective of minimizing these AEs, recommendations for changing catheters every 2-3 days have historically been provided by manufacturers based on reports derived from small studies and anecdotal data. The aim of this review was to provide an updated analysis of current recommendations and patients' practices in relation to frequency of catheter change. Our main findings are: (1) adequately designed and powered studies investigating optimal catheter wearing time are still lacking; (2) increasing catheter wearing time is generally associated with increased frequency of catheter AEs; (3) however, interpatient variability is large, with some individuals needing to change their catheters every 2-3 days, whereas others probably being able to keep them in place for longer periods without problems. Further research is thus warranted to provide more solid and evidence-based recommendations while exploring personalized approaches at the same time. Increasing catheter wear life without significant side effects is an important goal to simplify CSII therapy and reduce its associated costs and burdens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".