Why CGM, really?

Lol. Maybe a gothic font? With umlauts and the Motorhead skull thingy? We need some pics!

It’s worth it

I didn’t call… I’m way past 7 days on this sensor :slight_smile:

It didn’t suddenly go bad, it had been trending up since yesterday, after it had been reading unusually low all day and part of friday too.

As best I can figure out, since I’ve seen this happen numerous times with “older” sensors (usually as they close in on 3 weeks of use), is that as the sensor ages, the data it’s sending back to the receiver gets very questionable.

This makes me feel better. My excursions into week 3 delivered mixed results. 2 weeks is the end-of-the-line now.

well in the absence of this information, this kind of post makes folks not trust CGM. I see the same thing at end of life on my sensors but after 2 or 3 erronous readings on a sensor in the 2 week or older time frame its just time to change it out. This is like complaining about tires that have a 50,000 mile warranty that blow out after 100,000 miles and no tread - the post was really misleading

What you are seeing is pretty typical of a sensor needing to be replaced. It’s not really a product flaw, it’s just that you’ve worn it out after 19 or 20 days of continuous use. Pop a new one in and you will be back to getting good results again.

It is so sad that CGMs get a bad rep because of the MM CGMS. I hope MM will upgrade it’s CGMS with one that works better.

Well, but on that same token, I HAVE had this happen with a relatively new sensor too… one of only two (out of maybe 40 now) that have actually “failed”. I don’t think it really paints a bad picture for the technology even if I am using it outside of the noted specifications… mostly because this particular sensor is only on day 9… it’s not like I’ve pushed it to day 20 or something… considering my typical usage, this one is still fairly “fresh”.

I do expect a little better, considering I pay cash for these things and they’re freaking expensive… I’d like to get all the use out of them that I can. If I were to replace them every week there’s no way I could afford to use the system.

Thanks for stating the obvious! :wink:

I’m stating the obvious because newbies who look at your pictures are led to believe CGMS are wildy inaccurate. I think it would have been fair if you disclosed that your sensor was 21 days old and dying when you posted your pic.

No endorsement trumps paying cash.

I read the book “In Vivo Glucose Sensing”. A lot of sensors work perfectly fine in vitro. Stick them into a ‘hostile’ body and all bets are off.

Somewhere around TuDiabetes there was a thing from someone w/ the Revel version who said it was quite a bit better? I don’t remember which thread though…

“Eyeum looking foah Sarah Connoah’s blud gluecose. Eye vass told eye culd find it heah”

Well, this thread is more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys!!! Especially the acidrock Terminator blud gluecose quest.
Glad I asked!!

Neil –

You don’t want to eat until the cgms says your # is normal – this would probably lead you to consume waaaayyyy too many carbs because of the lag time on the cgms. You just want to snooze your alarm for a bit instead.

Revel cgms is a bit better than the 522. Dex 7+ blows away the Revel though.

Ze Skynet Glucose Monitor vill allow you to eat ze donuts und pizza und ze pasta und der schnitzel…ausgezeichnet…

Good point.

Uhmmm how do you figure? If the CGM shows 72 with a down arrow, I am most definitely treating, it is all about trends, the same 72 with a straight arrow or a up arrow would not be treated. Likewise a 150 with an up arrow and no IOB would be treated with a correction bolus but a 150 with a down arrow would not be treated. The trend and the actual value along with any IOB are the factors to consider.