Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparison of a continuous indwelling glucometer with a point-of-care device in healthy adult horses
  1. Alexandra Cunneen,
  2. Kelly A Wood,
  3. Kylie Mathison,
  4. Aaron M Herndon and
  5. Francois R Bertin
  1. School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Francois R Bertin, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia; f.bertin{at}


Background Blood glucose is tightly regulated in horses; however, since hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia are associated with poor prognosis, close monitoring is warranted. This study aimed at evaluating a continuous indwelling glucometer (CIG) by comparing performance with a point-of-care glucometer (POC).

Methods Ten horses were equipped with CIG and an intravenous catheter. Interstitial glucose concentrations were determined by CIG every 5 min at rest, during insulin-induced hypoglycaemia and dextrose-induced hyperglycaemia, and compared with blood glucose determined by POC. Glucose concentrations were compared by two-way repeated measures analysis of variance and weighted kappa with Bland-Altman plots to determine agreement between assays.

Results Horses tolerated CIG well; however, five devices had to be replaced. There were no statistically significant differences between assays at rest or during hyperglycaemia; however, during hypoglycaemia, glucose concentrations determined by CIG were significantly higher (P=0.01). The mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between assays ranged from −0.03 (−2.46 to 2.52) mmol/l (hyperglycaemia) to 0.97 (−1.23 to 3.16) mmol/l (hypoglycaemia). Assay agreement was ‘good’ with observed agreements of 87.04% (κ=0.67).

Conclusions of the study CIG has acceptable accuracy in horses as compared with POC but overestimates glucose concentrations during hypoglycaemia and requires frequent replacement, limiting its clinical application.

  • endocrinology
  • critical care
  • insulin
  • glucose
  • diagnostic testing
View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Presented at The study was presented as an abstract at the 2019 Forum of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

  • Funding This study was funded by The University of Queensland undergraduate research program.

  • Competing interests FRB has consulted for and received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd for his research.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by The University of Queensland Animal Ethics Committee (approval: SVS/101/18).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplementary information. Data are available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.