Amperometric glucose sensors have advanced the care of patients with diabetes and are being studied to control insulin delivery in the research setting. However, at times, currently available sensors demonstrate suboptimal accuracy, which can result from calibration error, sensor drift, or lag. Inaccuracy can be particularly problematic in a closed-loop glycemic control system. In such a system, the use of two sensors allows selection of the more accurate sensor as the input to the controller. In our studies in subjects with type 1 diabetes, the accuracy of the better of two sensors significantly exceeded the accuracy of a single, randomly selected sensor. If an array with three or more sensors were available, it would likely allow even better accuracy with the use of voting.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care.2009;32 (8): 1378–83.
2.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med.2008;359 (14)1464–76.
3.
KovatchevBAndersonSHeinemannLClarkeW.Comparison of the numerical and clinical accuracy of four continuous glucose monitors. Diabetes Care.2008;31 (6): 1160–4.
4.
GargSKSmithJBeatsonCLopez-BacaBVoelmleMGottliebPA.Comparison of accuracy and safety of the SEVEN and the Navigator Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems. Diabetes Technol Ther.2009;11 (2): 65–72.
5.
MazzeRSStrockEBorgmanSWesleyDStoutPRacchiniJ.Evaluating the accuracy, reliability, and clinical applicability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): is CGM ready for real time?Diabetes Technol Ther.2009;11 (1): 11–8.
6.
GargSKSchwartzSEdelmanSV.Improved glucose excursions using an implantable real-time continuous glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care.2004;27 (3): 734–8.
7.
WentholtIMHartAAHoekstraJBDevriesJH.Relationship between interstitial and blood glucose in type 1 diabetes patients: delay and the push-pull phenomenon revisited. Diabetes Technol Ther.2007;9 (2): 169–75.
8.
WardWKWoodMDTroupeJE.Rise in background current over time in a subcutaneous glucose sensor in the rabbit: relevance to calibration and accuracy. Biosens Bioelectron.2000;15 (1–2): 53–61.
9.
KelloggDLJr.In vivo mechanisms of cutaneous vasodilation and vasoconstriction in humans during thermoregulatory challenges. J Appl Physiol.2006;100 (5): 1709–18.
10.
GilliganBJShultsMCRhodesRKUpdikeSJ.Evaluation of a subcutaneous glucose sensor out to 3 months in a dog model. Diabetes Care.1994;17 (8): 882–7.
11.
WardWK.A review of the foreign-body response to subcutaneously-implanted devices: role of macrophages and cytokines in biofouling and fibrosis. J Diabetes Sci Technol.2008;2 (5): 768–77.
12.
SharkawyAAKlitzmanBTruskeyGAReichertWM.Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. I. Diffusion properties. J Biomed Mater Res.1997;37 (3): 401–12.
13.
SharkawyAAKlitzmanBTruskeyGAReichertWM.Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. II. Plasma-tissue exchange properties. J Biomed Mater Res.1998;40 (4): 586–97.
14.
SharkawyAAKlitzmanBTruskeyGAReichertWM.Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. III. Effective tissue response times. J Biomed Mater Res.1998;40 (4): 598–605.
15.
GiffordRBatchelorMMLeeYGokulranganGMeyerhoffMEWilsonGS.Mediation of in vivo glucose sensor inflammatory response via nitric oxide release. J Biomed Mater Res A.2005;75 (4): 755–66.
16.
SchmidtkeDWPishkoMVQuinnCPHellerA.Statistics for critical clinical decision making based on readings of pairs of implanted sensors. Anal Chem.1996;68 (17): 2845–9.
17.
WardWKCaseyHMQuinnMJFederiukIFWoodMD.A fully implantable subcutaneous glucose sensor array: enhanced accuracy from multiple sensing units and a median-based algorithm. Diabetes Technol Ther.2003;5 (6): 943–52.
