Based on the investigation analysis, the first reported event at 5:50 am est on november 25, 2022, demonstrated the inherent lag in the sensing technology of the system and that the sensor glucose eventually caught up to the calibration (capillary) entry after 3-4 sensor readings.Per the analysis of the second reported event at 8:07 pm est on november 25, 2022, following the calibration entry at 8:07 pm est, the system adjusted the glucose calculation in response to the calibration entry.The system reading adjusted to 100 mg/dl at 8:09 pm est.There are several ways the system would adjust glucose calculations to account for the fingerstick measurement and one such mechanism is calibration entries which are used to better match the glucose readings in comparison with incoming fingerstick measurements.The analysis of the third event at 7:46 pm est on november 26, 2022, also demonstrated the inherent lag in the sensing technology of the system and that the sensor glucose eventually caught up to the calibration (capillary) entry after 3-4 sensor readings.The reported events happened during the initial few days after sensor insertion.During the initial settling period after sensor insertion, there could be chances of temporary mismatch, which would eventually normalize as the sensor stabilizes.In this case, once the sensor recovered after insertion, the system began performing within expectations and there was better accuracy between the sensor readings and fingerstick measurements.No further investigation was found necessary for this complaint.User did not need to take any treatment actions as the blood glucose level was not the hypoglycemia range.The sensor had stabilized since the event and been performing well within expectations.H3.Device evaluated by manufacturer?: yes.H6.Investigation findings updated to 114.H6.Investigation conclusions updated to 4315.
|