Denmark Study: CGM vs. Finger Sticks in ICU Patients

Danish Researchers Take a Hard Look at Glucose Monitoring in the ICU

A study from Denmark, published in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (2025), outlines a major research effort to determine whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is more effective than traditional finger-stick blood sugar checks for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The work comes from the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care at Copenhagen University Hospital – North Zealand in Hilleroed, Denmark.

Why ICU Blood Sugar Management Is So Difficult

When someone is critically ill, their blood sugar can swing dramatically — sometimes dangerously high (hyperglycemia) or dangerously low (hypoglycemia). These swings, collectively called dysglycemia, are linked to higher rates of complications and death in ICU patients.

Right now, most ICUs — in Denmark, the US, and around the world — rely on intermittent point-of-care (POC) testing, essentially periodic finger-stick or blood draws to check glucose levels. The problem? A lot can happen to a patient's blood sugar between those checks.

CGM devices, which many Americans with diabetes already use at home, offer real-time, around-the-clock glucose readings. The Danish research team wants to know: could bringing that same continuous monitoring into the ICU improve patient outcomes?

What Makes This Study Unique

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol — meaning the researchers are not reporting new clinical trial results yet, but are laying out a rigorous, pre-registered plan to gather and analyze all available randomized clinical trials on this topic. This Scandinavian approach to evidence synthesis is well-regarded globally for its methodological rigor.

While US research has explored CGM in hospital settings, large-scale, international syntheses like this one help identify whether findings hold up across different healthcare systems, patient populations, and ICU practices — adding weight and generalizability that single-country studies cannot provide.

What They Will Measure

• Primary outcome: Mortality (death rates) at the longest available follow-up
• Main secondary outcome: Number of hypoglycemic events (blood sugar below roughly 70 mg/dL)
• Additional outcomes: other patient-important and blood sugar control metrics

Does This Align With US Guidelines?

Current US guidelines from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine acknowledge the importance of tight glucose control in ICU patients but stop short of broadly recommending CGM in hospital settings due to limited high-quality evidence. This Danish-led review is designed to fill exactly that evidence gap — meaning its eventual findings could influence US clinical practice guidelines directly.

Why This Matters for US Patients

If you or a loved one has diabetes and ever requires intensive hospital care, the method used to monitor blood sugar could affect survival and recovery. This research could provide the clearest evidence yet that CGM — the same technology millions of Americans use daily — belongs in the ICU. Better glucose control in the hospital starts with better monitoring, whether at home or in critical care.

For patients managing diabetes day-to-day, consistent glucose monitoring remains the foundation of good control. Explore CGM-compatible tools and diabetes management resources at mdsdiabetes.com to stay ahead of your health between doctor visits.

Citation

[Denmark] — Nielsen, Grigonyte-Daraskeviciene, Blem (2025). "Effects of Continuous Versus Intermittent Glucose Monitoring in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Protocol for a Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis." Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. PMID: 40548566. DOI: 10.1111/aas.70086