Redundancy in Glucose Sensing: Enhanced Accuracy and Reliability of an Electrochemical Redundant Sensor for Continuous Glucose Monitoring. (May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sharifi, Amin; Varsavsky, Andrea; Ulloa, Johanna; Horsburgh, Jodie C.; McAuley, Sybil A.; Krishnamurthy, Balasubramanian; Jenkins, Alicia J.; Colman, Peter G.; Ward, Glenn M.; MacIsaac, Richard J.; Shah, Rajiv; O'Neal, David N.
• Is Part Of: Journal of diabetes science and technology. Volume 10:Number 3(2016:May)
• Page Start: 669
• Page End: 678
• Publication Date: 2016-05
• Subjects: accuracy -- continuous glucose sensor -- electrochemical redundant sensor -- glucose oxidase -- precision -- reliability; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Medical technology -- Periodicals; Diabetes Mellitus -- Periodicals; 616.462005
• DOI: 10.1177/1932296815612096
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1932-2968

Abstract

Background: Current electrochemical glucose sensors use a single electrode. Multiple electrodes (redundancy) may enhance sensor performance. We evaluated an electrochemical redundant sensor (ERS) incorporating two working electrodes (WE1 and WE2) onto a single subcutaneous insertion platform with a processing algorithm providing a single real-time continuous glucose measure. Methods: Twenty-three adults with type 1 diabetes each wore two ERSs concurrently for 168 hours. Post-insertion a frequent sampling test (FST) was performed with ERS benchmarked against a glucose meter (Bayer Contour Link). Day 4 and 7 FSTs were performed with a standard meal and venous blood collected for reference glucose measurements (YSI and meter). Between visits, ERS was worn with capillary blood glucose testing ≥8 times/day. Sensor glucose data were processed prospectively. Results: Mean absolute relative deviation (MARD) for ERS day 1-7 (3, 297 paired points with glucose meter) was (mean [SD]) 10.1 [11.5]% versus 11.4 [11.9]% for WE1 and 12.0 [11.9]% for WE2; P < .0001. ERS Clarke A and A+B were 90.2% and 99.8%, respectively. ERS day 4 plus day 7 MARD (1, 237 pairs with YSI) was 9.4 [9.5]% versus 9.6 [9.7]% for WE1 and 9.9 [9.7]% for WE2; P = ns. ERS day 1-7 precision absolute relative deviation (PARD) was 9.9 [3.6]% versus 11.5 [6.2]% for WE1 and 10.1 [4.4]% for WE2; P = ns. ERS sensor display time was 97.8 [6.0]% versus 91.0 [22.3]% for WE1 and 94.1 [14.3]% for WE2; P < .05. Conclusions: Electrochemical redundancy enhances glucose sensor accuracy and display time compared with each individual sensing element alone. ERS performance compares favorably with 'best-in-class' of non-redundant sensors.