I'm a little excited about the new meter because it came with a lancing device that has been highly reviewed by other glucose checking enthusiasts.
The Fast-clix* lancing device is pretty different. It has a rotating drum of lancets that allow you to change lancets with the flick of a switch, and unload your lancets without exposure to the sharp points. And, you can prick your finger in one easy motion, without "cocking" the device. It is so fancy that I couldn't get it set-up and use it without reading the directions... that's pretty special. After doing this finger poking thing for 25 years or so, you'd think that any device that came your way would be super simple to figure out. Well, this one required just a tiny bit of study.
So here's the creepy bit... (what does this number mean?)
My sensor was reading 170 (post french fry experiment). I Accu-cheked with the new meter and it said I was 240. I was pretty surprised to see such a difference (and, of course my mind went wild wondering if my meter that I use for calibration has been wrong all along, and I've been running 70 points higher for the past couple years).
I tested again, 204. Not good, that's still a decent difference from the CGM and the previous test. I tested again, 213. I took that one as my correction number and delivered a correction.
So, maybe an hour later, after dinner, I test again, 129. That was a fast drop, eh? I still have 2.5 units on board. Did I overdo my correction? I haven't even bolused for dinner yet, maybe I won't. Oh, that's right, when I was over 150 in the late afternoon I turned my basal up, and that's probably what's causing the faster drop. All this with a new meter in my life.
With this new paradigm, I realized that my CGMS sensor
is only as good as the meter that calibrates it. I sometimes wonder if
my meter is entirely accurate (which we all know, they don't really have
to be), and what impact it would have on my overall control to have a
legitimately accurate calibration a couple times a day. Just something to think about. It's probably even worth letting integrated devices slip away, if they aren't accurate enough.
Recently, my sister (hi Ariana!) was trying to sort out some glucose mysteries and discovered that her meter was totally erratic and inaccurate. Well, that is not helpful when you are trying to respond to immediate problems... She got a new meter, and I hope that it offers a fresh compass in her quest for good glucose control.
This whole thing brings up a new question... I had been finding that I wasn't feeling any signs of hypo when I got down to 70s and sometimes 60s, when I was using my integrated One-Link meter. Today, I've been at 70-80 (according to my new meter) and I've been noticing my regular symptoms for hypos. It makes me wonder if I've been running higher than I think, all the time... if I calibrate my sensor off of a meter that runs high... and my data is all skewed downward. You wonder more...
My last at-home A1C was 6.7, but, my average blood sugar, according to my sensor had been 133 mg/dl. So, I would expect a 6.3 or so. Maybe my A1C is really telling me that my meter and sensor readings have been bogus to some degree. Maybe I really was averaging 15-20 points higher and never really getting close to hypos, ever. Always something to think about...