Background: Advances in diabetes technology have led to reliance on continuous glucose monitors (CGM) for glycemic management. Insufficient wear time due to device malfunction, insertion problems, displacement or removal for imaging, medical procedures or hospitalization is common. Prescription practices that provide an exact number of sensors without redundancy fail to account for the realities of CGM use. The aim of this study is to characterize CGM disruption rates and consequences.

Methods: A RedCap survey was completed by adults from a university based diabetes center with T1D or T2D who utilize CGM.

Results: Of 262 surveys sent, 76 were completed. Participants had mean age 54, T1D 69%, female 72%, White 97%, and mean duration of diabetes 28 years. 100% used CGM (85.1% Dexcom, 9.5% Freestyle Libre, 5.4% Medtronic) , 61% insulin pump, and 41% HCL systems. The percent of participants reporting ≥1 CGM disruption events in 1 year: device malfunction (85.1%) , insertion problems (63.0%) , displacement (56.8%) ; removal for imaging (44.6%) , surgery/procedures (13.7%) and hospitalization (4.1%) . Adverse glycemic events attributed to disruption of CGM including hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia occurred ≥1 time in 55.4% and 45.9% of the participants respectively (Figure) .

Conclusion: Loss of CGM use prior to the anticipated change date is common. Lack of redundancy of CGM supplies contributes to disruptions in care and adverse glycemic events.


A.Cedeno: None. P.Krutilova: None. A.Markov: None. J.B.Mcgill: Advisory Panel; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, MannKind Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Provention Bio, Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Consultant; Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Novo Nordisk. A.M.Mckee: Consultant; Medtronic.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at