6/9 Baco AMPS 52, NS - PMPS 85, NS

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's wonderful! :bighug::bighug::bighug:
Good luck Ruby, Baco is doing so well, congrats!
What type of meter do you use please?
Marelna
 
Thanks Marlena :)
I use a human meter, it's called Accu-Chek Aviva I don't know if this brand is available in the UK?
 
Ruby, I really like this meter! I usually use pet AlphaTrak (I used Accu-Chek initially)but I think it only confuses things as advice here is based on results obtained on human meters.
The reason I've asked is because I wanted to see how you treated Baco and on what numbers you stopped giving insulin.
I'm now terribly confused as I've seen a few other cats not needing insulin when their numbers were in blues.
I still give Rocky a small dose but my thinking is maybe I shouldn't.
I think I will create a new post and ask for some guidelines. I've been doing this for a long time but I'm still learning.
Wishing you best of health, give Baco lots of cuddles from
Marlena & Rocky:cat:
 
Well @Marlena I’ve 'stopped' at 9.6mmol (173) on 5/31/16 because that was 'too low' that day, because I had to go to work and couldn’t monitor that AM cycle so I wanted to be safe.
That PM she was really low, but got scared of the mailman ringing the door and went up to 20.6mmol (371) and I gave her (based on advice of fellow members) a little bit of insulin to bring her down from that ‘scare’.
After that she didn’t need insulin anymore, because my limit for a shootable number is 8,3mmol (150) and she didn’t show really has shown me that in the days after that (only at 6/3/16 it was 8.5mmol but I didn’t gave her a dose again due to work and I couldn’t monitor her.
Sometimes kitties do go up a little and there numbers are a little above 8.3mmol (150) but that doesn’t mean they lost remission. (I’ve learned that from this forum) and as you can see in Baco’s sheet she didn’t need any shots after that.
Her pancreas is doing all the work now on it’s own and sometimes she does get a little higher than how it’s supposed by ‘the book’ but that is also due to sometimes a diet, or lack of exercise.
Have you ever tried to see what Rocky does when he’s not on insulin when he shows you a number that’s lower than 8.3mmol (150)?
You can, if you want and you can monitor the cycle, try that with him and see what his pancreas does on it’s own…
I will watch your thread! :)
 
Many thanks Ruby,
I was just thinking about stopping insulin and seeing what occurs.
I have to admit I did not have a limit for a shootable number other then normal 4.5 - 5. I think I'm confused about tight regulation and sliding scale.
I did managed to get Rocky in remission twice before when he was on Caninsulin and I was shooting low numbers of 4.5 for a week and keeping him in that range before I stopped injecting him.
He was in remission for 6 months.
I think I have posted a question about shooting low numbers and one member replied that if I see higher number a few hours after food and insulin it means that he still need insulin. I have to find this post.
In the meantime I'm thinking a lot about meters. I have stopped using Accu-Chek which I really like but it's a long story so I won't go into in at the moment. Anyway, my own comparison of Accu-Chek and AlphaTrak brought me to the conclusion that these meters give you similar readings especially on very low numbers, Accu was reading even lower.
I'm really struggling with these tiny doses I'm giving (like s 0.25 (s for small) as it is quite a job to do accurately! I just can't see!
I keep praying for your continued success with Baco.
Thanks for taking time to give me support.:):cat::)
 
You're welcome Marlena:bighug:

Well you can maybe ask @Robin&BB , @Sue and Oliver (GA) , or @Rachel about ‘stopping’ the insulin.
I’ve not stopped it on purpose, I just couldn’t monitor so I skipped it to be safe, but that resulted in no shots needed anymore after that. :smuggrin: (that was something I really didn't have a problem with hihi)
But I think if I could have monitored that cycle of the 9.6mmol I probably have given her a dose too.

But please ask the wise ones about it just to be sure, because quitting it can maybe cause even higher numbers and that’s something you don’t want right, haha!;)
 
Marlena said:
I have stopped using Accu-Chek which I really like but it's a long story so I won't go into in at the moment.
Click to expand...
I would like to know the story behind it, so if you have the time this week or something, can you please tell me? or you can send me a PM later on about it. I would love to know why you made that choice.
 
Ruby&Baco said:
Well you can maybe ask @Robin&BB , @Sue and Oliver (GA) , or @Rachel about ‘stopping’ the insulin.
Click to expand...
Hi, Marlena - If you are using the AlphaTrak2 meter (AT2), these numbers I'm seeing on Rocky's SS are VERY good numbers. So I would say: Keep on doing what you're doing!:) Your Rocky is doing beautifully!:D

Please do note that the "be alert" number (meaning to watch for signs of hypoglycemia while ON insulin) for the AT2 meter is higher than for the human-type meters: That number is anything less than 3.83 mmol (<69 mg/dL in U.S.) on the AT2. (Numbers below that level when not on any dose of insulin are generally perfectly safe.)
 
Robin&BB said:
Please do note that the "be alert" number (meaning to watch for signs of hypoglycemia while ON insulin) for the AT2 meter is higher than for the human-type meters: That number is anything less than 3.83 mmol (<69 mg/dL in U.S.) on the AT2. (Numbers below that level when not on any dose of insulin are generally perfectly safe.)
Click to expand...
Dear Robin,
thank you very much for your input.
I have some problems with opinion expressed here when it comes to low numbers being different between human and pet meters. I have used both meters simultaneously and observed that pet meter was reading almost the same as human one, in fact human one was reading just a fraction higher (for example 3.4 on Accucheck versus 3.3 on AlphaTrack). To me it is the same number! On higher numbers I observed a bigger difference. When I compared other human meters, the difference between them was quite noticeable as well. It doesn't matter really, low number is a low number. It is just not as simple as to say human meter reads lower then pet meter. There were some discussions about it on this forum so most people are aware about inconsistency.
It looks like Rocky still needs insulin as I reduced the dose to just a tiny dose of 6 drops and he is going higher.
I really don't know what to do as I saw already a few kitties going OTJ when care givers stopped insulin on blue numbers. Others continue with dosing reduced amount of insulin until cat is mostly in green numbers. There is this thought on my mind that I give insulin needlessly but as soon as I reduce Rocky gives me higher numbers. We had a few scary moments of very low BG and even hypo because all of a sudden Rocky goes too low.
I really don't know what to do and why different people do different things and get the same result. I'm confused I think about sliding scale and TR. I would love to hear some knowledgeable members' opinions and I would like to learn more if somebody could direct me where to find information.
:cat:
 
Marlena said:
No problem, I will do that later.:)
Click to expand...
Ruby,
apologies for delay in explaining the meter situation.
As you know, I used and really liked AccuCheck Aviva. Unfortunately I was getting low battery every few weeks and my DH insisted that it must be a fault with the meter. Then, one day Rocky's BGs were high and flat all day and I thought the meter was faulty. I have contacted Roche and they did not think the meter wasn't working properly and they send me a testing solution and a voucher for different batteries. Everything was in order. But I decided to purchase AlphaTrak as my vet let me use one and I really liked it so decided to purchase it as my insurance covered it.
So I have two meters and sometimes I do comparison but I also think it is a good idea to have a spare one as a backup.
I'm so thrilled that Baco is doing so well.
I keep my fingers and Rocky his paws crossed for the continuation of this success!
Love to both of you:bighug::bighug::bighug:
 
Marlena said:
I have some problems with opinion expressed here when it comes to low numbers being different between human and pet meters. I have used both meters simultaneously and observed that pet meter was reading almost the same as human one, in fact human one was reading just a fraction higher (for example 3.4 on Accucheck versus 3.3 on AlphaTrack). To me it is the same number! On higher numbers I observed a bigger difference. When I compared other human meters, the difference between them was quite noticeable as well. It doesn't matter really, low number is a low number. It is just not as simple as to say human meter reads lower then pet meter. There were some discussions about it on this forum so most people are aware about inconsistency.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's been quite a bit of discussion about the differences between human meters & the AlphaTrak2.;) In my own experience, the AT2 does tend to result in higher #s than the human meter I've used (the Relion Confirm) - and that's across the entire range, with the exception of an occasional "wonky" number I'd get from the human meter. (I think maybe once the human meter read slightly higher than the AT2.)
Marlena said:
There is this thought on my mind that I give insulin needlessly but as soon as I reduce Rocky gives me higher numbers. We had a few scary moments of very low BG and even hypo because all of a sudden Rocky goes too low.
Click to expand...
I totally understand how you're feeling about this. My cat is on an extremely tiny dose of Lantus (o.05U), and from an AMPS today of 152, she was given that dose --- and I just finished steering her up from a 48 (Relion meter) she dropped down to at +4. Yet yesterday she was at 109 AMPS & 122 PMPS, so was not given her tiny dose on either cycle. So yes, it is rather frustrating when you get down to such tiny doses and we can't quite get them over the hump to what is considered a true remission state...:banghead: (@Ruby&Baco - Sorry, Ruby; not trying to hijack your thread here, but wanted to let @Marlena know that I certainly can sympathize with her!:))
 
@MrWorfMen's Mom (Linda) has been doing side-by-side comparisons between human and AT2 meters for a really long time ... she might be able to provide more insights than I can on the subject of the variances in results.
 
Marlena said:
Anyway, my own comparison of Accu-Chek and AlphaTrak brought me to the conclusion that these meters give you similar readings especially on very low numbers, Accu was reading even lower.
Click to expand...

Marlena, your observations are quite correct as confusing as it might seem. When doing side by side comparisons, it's important to realize that all meters, pet and human, are allowed to have a 20% variance. So if you are dealing in low numbers, where there is very little difference between the 2 meters, that 20% could in fact result in a human meter reading slightly higher than the pet meter. That said, I don't think that scenario would happen too often but it is possible. At that point though, either meter is giving you a warning of numbers you need to monitor and possibly steer so this little "glitch" is really just as insignificant as the bigger difference between the two meters at high numbers. High is high and low is low. I have the perception that the pet meter picks up on rising BG faster than the human meter and the human meter picks up dropping numbers faster but I haven't done any analysis to see if my perception has any merit or is just my imagination. Let me know if you need/want any further clarification. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top