Accu-Chek Compact Plus
I want a new meter. I want one so badly I went in search of a new meter. My former meter was doing fine, but I wondered, was I ready for a change. This week I am reviewing two meters I have tried and tomorrow I will tell you the one I chose.
Accu-Chek Compact Plus
I used an Accu-Chek compact (not the plus model) for many years prior to trying this meter. The Compact Plus is a drum based meter. To use it, the operator loads the strips by inserting a drum into the meter. That drums remains in the meter for 17 tests and therein lies the best advantage of this meter. Especially for a person like me that hates to fumble around with test strips and running out and carrying extra test strips.
Since you never have to handle test strips prior to use, there is no chance of contamination before use (yes my fingers are occasionally sticky when I pick up a strip). This might be especially important for individuals who might lose or drop unused test strips. Having them in a drum and only handling a large drum to load the strips and unload the used drum is appealing. Having 17 test strips should theoretically reduce what has to be carried for extras. I also found that the device is relatively accurate when tested against other meters and itself. It gave consistent results on different fingers and with other meters It does the job it is designed for.
Pros:
It is an all in one meter. I enjoy the fact that I do not need to load a test strip each time I use the meter and since I preload the strips it is a breeze. When I need to test, I simply perform it and go on. It is an easy process.
Several commentators report that they use the lancet as an attached device. I did not do this. Long ago I switched to the AccuCheck FastClix (which I think is the best lancet device by far) and the FastClix does not attach to the meter. Only the lancet provided (a single lancet device attaches to the meter). I can certainly understand how having the lancet attached to the meter would make like somewhat easier. Especially for people who may have difficulty balancing the meter and lancet while they are drawing blood.
The device requires a small amount of blood. My fingers appreciate the small amount required. The data reporting system is online and is fairly easy to use. However, the computer interface relies on the purchase of a specialized attachment for your computer to communicate with the Accu-Chek Connect or Accu-Chek 360 software. It is my understanding the 360 software platform is no longer being supported however the new online platform is really top notch and will support Accu-Chek pumps, some meters and the new AccuCheck connect meter.
I really like the reports generated by the online software and the best part is when one uses this meter with the new online software, your results can still be shared (after upload at a computer) with your CDE or other healthcare provider. This gives access to the some of the newer Accu-Chek software advantages.
Improvements that might be made:
There are several reasons I have decided to not use this meter. First the drums require far more storage than the typical test strips. Since the Compact Plus drum comes in a package a little smaller than a regular a package of 50 test strips, and each Compact Plus drum holds only 17 test strips , the amount of storage required for a 90 day supply is roughly 3 times that of a normal supply.
Second, the meter is heavier than newer meters. Since the meter seems to rely on a combination of mechanical parts (rotate the drum) and electronic components the overall outcome is clunky. For fun I turned the meter on in church and tested my blood sugar and even with the beeps turned off it felt like everyone in the sanctuary could hear the meter operating. So this is this not for quiet testing in the back of the class.
My wife dislikes how short the test strips are when they eject from the meter. Her comment (I think it is a fair one) is that if I was low and in need of her help she fears she might not be able to manipulate my hand/finger in order to get the blood on the test strip. I think that this is a design decision Roche made when putting together the package. Adding the lancet adds immediate stability for testing, but makes the meter seem larger so they had to reduce size where they could. Design tradeoffs are what has to happen when items change; this just goes along with the process. In my case, I would have chosen to stay with bigger strips but in Roche case other considerations won out.
It is also a very expensive meter, owing its cost (I am guessing) to the mechanical components of the meter. The least expensive I saw was $47.78 plus shipping new on Amazon and the most expensive $105.48 from the Betty Mills Company.
Finally, while I really liked the software; I am troubled by the fact that data from Accu-Chek devices is not portable to Tidepool in particular or any other third party application in general. Accu-Chek should at the very least provide a way for the user to be able to export data for their own use.
In short, this meter feels and sounds aged. I fondly remembered using the Accu-Chek compact, but that was before I used all electronic meters with test strips that are inserted for each test. My sense is that for certain applications, in particular, those requiring protected strip access and an attached lancing device are wonderful; for this meter. But, if that is not needed and weight is a concern then it may be better to try a different meter.
-30-
rick
Disclosure:
Accu-Chek sent me two meters and 117 test strips for my review this week. In the case of the meter being reviewed today I also received 17 test strips, but I believe the test strips come as part of the regular package. For the meter I called the regular Accu-Chek help line and asked for one.
Take away for March 22, 2016
• The Accu-Chek Compact meter is both mechanical and electronic
• It weighs more and is larger than most new meters
• It is a competent meter for the task
• Of the two meters I reviewed, it is not the one I chose
