Veo's CGMS: an improvement?

I’m wondering if anyone who has used CGM with both the “old” Minimed pump and the new Veo has noticed any difference in the CGM accuracy of the new model. I sent an email to Medtronic, asking about CGM improvements and received the following in their reply:

"The Veo offers an improved algorithm which improves the accuracy of sensor glucose readings, particularly in the low glucose range."

Any thoughts on this? I’m eligible for a pump replacement and am wondering whether to stick with Medtronic or to hang on (who knows how long …) for an Animas/Dexcom integration.


Unfortunately here in the US, we can’t get the Veo, only the Revel. From several long discussions with folks at Medtronic that seem to know what they are talking about, the only difference between the Veo and the Revel is the “turn off insulin if low alarm is ignored” feature. That said, I upgraded from the 522 to the Revel about six months ago and am very happy with most of the new or improved CGM features. For about two weeks after I got the Revel, I actually wore both pumps with the CGM talking to both. Almost every time I compared the two readings to a fingerstick, the Revel was closer. I did not notice any trends, ie it was more accurate for lows than highs but a generality that it was more accurate. I love the predicted low feature particularly when doing long duration exercise.

Thanks, Mike! That’s very helpful info … especially the comparisons you drew from wearing both pumps together. I wonder why the U.S. and Canadian models are different … it’s unusual that we would get a device/feature up here first!

Heather, simple answer is the US FDA didn’t approve the Veo so MM had to “dumb it down” to not include the ignored low feature. I believe Great Britain was the first to get the Veo, followed by others in Europe and then Canada. I do have to say I’m jealous. Not that I really need that feature but it would be a nice safety net for a severe low during sleep.

I’m running a Paradigm 722/754 Veo in parallel right now. Been on the 722 for 85 days - first day on the Veo. The Veo may be more accurate - the numbers certainly don’t jive. But I’m wondering about how long the sensors on the CGM will last. I got 14 days off the 722, but the Veo seems a bit more difficult, although it is currently using a sensor that is 11+ days old.
Wait a second - are you rowing a single scull? I used to build those! For a while, anyway. Figured out lateral pitch yet? Yeah, and guess where the nickname comes from…


Thanks, Turnershells … I’m impressed that you’re getting so many days out of your sensors! I’ve never managed more than 6.

That’s indeed a single scull I’m rowing … a very broad-beamed one. I’ve finally made the transition to racing shells, but I have no idea what lateral pitch means. :slight_smile:

That’s okay - there’s also span, workthrough, inboard, and even footboard (stretcher) angle.

But the sensor is more importantant. You can specify “Start New Sensor” and leave the old one in place. Works several times. Then it doesn’t. If I can get 14 days out of a sensor, it’s workable. Hoping this happens with the Veo as well. Does seem to be more accurate, anyway, and many more options on the Veo such as the added alarms. Still learning the whole mess.


Yeah, I do the “Start New Sensor” thing, but after the first two rounds (6 days), it’s nothing but Cal Errors. I’m wondering if it has to do more with physiological differences between users. I’m glad the Veo seems more accurate, though.

This evening it took three tries with the Veo, and it told me to start a new sensor. And I ignored it, and it worked. Might have as much to do with where your blood sugars are going at the time of calibration. I’m still new to this. Right now the Veo says 5.5 mmol/l and the 722 says 6.5 mmol/l. Probably split the difference. Still way better than testing 7x per day .


Taking the time to recharge the transmitter seems to be the fix. Right now both units are in agreement at 6.5 (and falling). The difference is the Veo gave an alarm that the bg was falling too fast, and to take precautions for hypoglycemia. Looks like I’m going to stick with the Veo. If it falls too far, the Veo would suspend the basal rate automaticaaly at a preset limit, which is also a plus. I’m doing that manually with the 722 to be on the safe side.

I’ll probably sideline the 722 tomorrow and switch to using the Veo for insulin, and run the 722 with the cgm as a comparison. This is about day 12 for the sensor, and the Veo is accepting it as a “new” sensor.

Hope this helps others decide. Customer service from Medtronics so far has been stellar. Important to give credit where credit is due.


Both the 722 and the Veo were in close agreement this morning at 4.3 and 4.5 respectively, but the Contour was 8.5, so I think that’s the useable limit for this sensor. Switched to using the Veo for both insulin and a new sensor, and the 722 is in the box waiting to go back.


Well, I spoke too soon. The Veo kicked out a sensor that was 2 days old and I’ve not been able to restart it, even by waiting overnight, recharging the transmitter etc. etc. I took the 722 out of the shipping box, stuck in a battery and re-programmed the time, date and sensor settings. If it allows this sensor when the Veo won’t, I guess my decision will be made for me. No point in having a new calibration algorithm that’s more accurate if it won’t allow you to use a perfectly good sensor.
Shame as I like all the new features of the Veo except this one.
If the 722 kicks out this sensor as well, I guess I’ll do more testing.


Well, I’ve been up and down on this all morning. The 722 didn’t work any better. There’s a good discussion of the relevant problems at .
Seeing the nurse this afternoon and maybe I’ll try re-starting the sensor when the sugars are more stable. I would have thought that before breakfast was a stable time, but I guess not necessarily.


Thanks for the updates and the link, turnershells.

I’ve had plenty of problems with my 522 CGM. Sometimes I think the problem might be with the sensor itself, rather than anything in the pump; other times it’s a complete mystery. Overall, it seems their technology still needs work. I wish we had access to the Dexcom 7, for comparison purposes, though I can’t imagine using it regularly until it integrates with a pump.