Membrane for use with implantable devices

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10039480
  • Patent Number
    10,039,480
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, February 11, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 7, 2018
    5 years ago
Abstract
The present invention provides a biointerface membrane for use with an implantable device that interferes with the formation of a barrier cell layer including; a first domain distal to the implantable device wherein the first domain supports tissue attachment and interferes with barrier cell layer formation and a second domain proximal to the implantable device wherein the second domain is resistant to cellular attachment and is impermeable to cells. In addition, the present invention provides sensors including the biointerface membrane, implantable devices including these sensors or biointerface membranes, and methods of monitoring glucose levels in a host utilizing the analyte detection implantable device of the invention. Other implantable devices which include the biointerface membrane of the present invention, such as devices for cell transplantation, drug delivery devices, and electrical signal delivery or measuring devices are also provided.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to biointerface membranes that may be utilized with implantable devices such as devices for the detection of analyte concentrations in a biological sample, cell transplantation devices, drug delivery devices and electrical signal delivering or measuring devices. The present invention further relates to methods for determining analyte levels using implantable devices including these membranes. More particularly, the invention relates to novel biointerface membranes, to sensors and implantable devices including these membranes, and to methods for monitoring glucose levels in a biological fluid sample using an implantable analyte detection device.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

One of the most heavily investigated analyte sensing devices is an implantable glucose sensor for detecting glucose levels in patients with diabetes. Despite the increasing number of individuals diagnosed with diabetes and recent advances in the field of implantable glucose monitoring devices, currently used devices are unable to provide data safely and reliably for long periods of time (e.g., months or years) [See, e.g., Moatti-Sirat et al., Diabetologia 35:224-30 (1992)]. There are two commonly used types of implantable glucose sensing devices. These types are those which are implanted intravascularly and those implanted in tissue.


With reference to devices that may be implanted in tissue, a disadvantage of these devices has been that they tend to lose their function after the first few days to weeks following implantation. At least one reason for this loss of function has been attributed to the fact that there is no direct contact with circulating blood to deliver sample to the tip of the probe of the implanted device. Because of these limitations, it has previously been difficult to obtain continuous and accurate glucose levels. However, this information is often extremely important to diabetic patients in ascertaining whether immediate corrective action is needed in order to adequately manage their disease.


Some medical devices, including implanted analyte sensors, drug delivery devices and cell transplantation devices require transport of solutes across the device-tissue interface for proper function. These devices generally include a membrane, herein referred to as a cell-impermeable membrane that encases the device or a portion of the device to prevent access by host inflammatory or immune cells to sensitive regions of the device.


A disadvantage of cell-impermeable membranes is that they often stimulate a local inflammatory response, called the foreign body response (FBR) that has long been recognized as limiting the function of implanted devices that require solute transport. Previous efforts to overcome this problem have been aimed at increasing local vascularization at the device-tissue interface with limited success.


The FBR has been well described in the literature and is composed of three main layers, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The innermost FBR layer 40, adjacent to the device, is composed generally of macrophages and foreign body giant cells 41 (herein referred to as the barrier cell layer). These cells form a monolayer 40 of closely opposed cells over the entire surface 48a of a smooth or microporous (<1.0 .mu.m) membrane 48. The intermediate FBR layer 42 (herein referred to as the fibrous zone), lying distal to the first layer with respect to the device, is a wide zone (30-100 microns) composed primarily of fibroblasts 43 and fibrous matrix 44. The outermost FBR layer 46 is loose connective granular tissue containing new blood vessels 45 (herein referred to as the vascular zone 46). A consistent feature of the innermost layers 40 and 42 is that they are devoid of blood vessels. This has led to widely supported speculation that poor transport of molecules across the device-tissue interface 47 is due to a lack of vascularization near interface 47 (Scharp et al., World J. Surg. 8:221-229 (1984), Colton and Avgoustiniatos J. Biomech. Eng. 113:152-170 (1991)).


Patents by Brauker et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,741,330), and Butler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,913,998), describe inventions aimed at increasing the number of blood vessels adjacent to the implant membrane (Brauker et al.), and growing within (Butler et al.) the implant membrane at the device-tissue interface. The patent of Shults et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,001,067) describes membranes that induce angiogenesis at the device-tissue interface of implanted glucose sensors. FIG. 2 illustrates a situation in which some blood vessels 45 are brought close to an implant membrane 48, but the primary layer 40 of cells adherent to the cell-impermeable membrane blocks glucose. This phenomenon is described in further detail below.


In the examples of Brauker et al. (supra), and Shults et al., bilayer membranes are described that have cell impermeable layers that are porous and adhesive to cells. Cells are able to enter into the interstices of these membranes, and form monolayers on the innermost layer, which is aimed at preventing cell access to the interior of the implanted device (cell impenetrable layers). Because the cell impenetrable layers are porous, cells are able to reach pseudopodia into the interstices of the membrane to adhere to and flatten on the membrane, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, thereby blocking transport of molecules across the membrane-tissue interface. The known art purports to increase the local vascularization in order to increase solute availability. However, the present studies show that once the monolayer of cells (barrier cell layer) is established adjacent to the membrane, increasing angiogenesis is not sufficient to increase transport of molecules such as glucose and oxygen across the device-tissue interface.


One mechanism of inhibition of transport of solutes across the device-tissue interface that has not been previously discussed in the literature is the formation of a uniform barrier to analyte transport by cells that form the innermost layer of the foreign body capsule. This layer of cells forms a monolayer with closely opposed cells having tight cell-to-cell junctions. When this barrier cell layer forms, it is not substantially overcome by increased local vascularization. Regardless of the level of local vascularization, the barrier cell layer prevents the passage of molecules that cannot diffuse through the layer. Again, this is illustrated in FIG. 2 where blood vessels 45 lie adjacent to the membrane but glucose transport is significantly reduced due to the impermeable nature of the barrier cell layer 40. For example, both glucose and its phosphorylated form do not readily transit the cell membrane and consequently little glucose reaches the implant membrane through the barrier layer cells.


It has been confirmed by the present inventors through histological examination of explanted sensors that the most likely mechanism for inhibition of molecular transport across the device-tissue interface is the barrier cell layer adjacent to the membrane. There is a strong correlation between desired device function and the lack of formation of a barrier cell layer at the device-tissue interface. In the present studies, devices that were observed histologically to have substantial barrier cell layers were functional only 41% of the time after 12 weeks in vivo. In contrast, devices that did not have significant barrier cell layers were functional 86% of the time after 12 weeks in vivo.


Consequently, there is a need for a membrane that interferes with the formation of a barrier layer and protects the sensitive regions of the device from host inflammatory response.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The biointerface membranes of the present invention interfere with the formation of a monolayer of cells adjacent to the membrane, henceforth referred to herein as a barrier cell layer, which interferes with the transport of oxygen and glucose across a device-tissue interface.


It is to be understood that various biointerface membrane architectures (e.g., variations of those described below) are contemplated by the present invention and are within the scope thereof.


In one aspect of the present invention, a biointerface membrane for use with an implantable device is provided including; a first domain distal to the implantable device wherein the first domain supports tissue ingrowth and interferes with barrier-cell layer formation and a second domain proximal to the implantable device wherein the second domain is resistant to cellular attachment and is impermeable to cells and cell processes.


In another aspect of the present invention, a biointerface membrane is provided including the properties of: promoting tissue ingrowth into; interfering with barrier cell formation on or within; resisting barrier-cell attachment to; and blocking cell penetration into the membrane.


In yet another aspect, a sensor head for use in an implantable device is provided which includes a biointerface membrane of the present invention.


In other aspects, a sensor for use in an implantable device that measures the concentration of an analyte in a biological fluid is provided including the biointerface membrane of the present invention.


In still another aspect of the present invention, a device for measuring an analyte in a biological fluid is provided, the device including the biointerface membrane of the present invention, a housing which includes electronic circuitry, and at least one sensor as provided above operably connected to the electronic circuitry of the housing.


The present invention further provides a method of monitoring analyte levels including the steps of: providing a host, and an implantable device as provided above; and implanting the device in the host. In one embodiment, the device is implanted subcutaneously.


Further provided by the present invention is a method of measuring analyte in a biological fluid including the steps of: providing i) a host, and ii) a implantable device as provided above capable of accurate continuous analyte sensing; and implanting the device in the host. In one embodiment of the method, the device is implanted subcutaneously.


In still another aspect of the present invention, an implantable drug delivery device is provided including a biointerface membrane as provided above. Preferably the implantable drug delivery device is a pump, a microcapsule or a macrocapsule.


The present invention further provides a device for implantation of cells which includes a biointerface membrane as provided above.


Also encompassed by the present invention is an electrical pulse delivering or measuring device, including a biointerface membrane according to that provided above.


The biointerface membranes, devices including these membranes and methods of use of these membranes provided by the invention allow for long term protection of implanted cells or drugs, as well as continuous information regarding, for example, glucose levels of a host over extended periods of time. Because of these abilities, the biointerface membranes of the present invention can be extremely important in the management of transplant patients, diabetic patients and patients requiring frequent drug treatment.


Definitions


In order to facilitate an understanding of the present invention, a number of terms are defined below.


The terms “biointerface membrane,” and the like refer to a permeable membrane that functions as a device-tissue interface comprised of two or more domains. Preferably, the biointerface membrane is composed of two domains. The first domain supports tissue ingrowth, interferes with barrier cell layer formation and includes an open cell configuration having cavities and a solid portion. The second domain is resistant to cellular attachment and impermeable to cells (e.g., macrophages). The biointerface membrane is made of biostable materials and may be constructed in layers, uniform or non-uniform gradients (i.e. anisotropic), or in a uniform or non-uniform cavity size configuration.


The term “domain” refers to regions of the biointerface membrane that may be layers, uniform or non-uniform gradients (e.g. anisotropic) or provided as portions of the membrane.


The term “barrier cell layer” refers to a cohesive monolayer of closely opposed cells (e.g. macrophages and foreign body giant cells) that may adhere to implanted membranes and interfere with the transport of molecules across the membrane.


The phrase “distal to” refers to the spatial relationship between various elements in comparison to a particular point of reference. For example, some embodiments of a device include a biointerface membrane having an cell disruptive domain and a cell impermeable domain. If the sensor is deemed to be the point of reference and the cell disruptive domain is positioned farther from the sensor, then that domain is distal to the sensor.


The term “proximal to” refers to the spatial relationship between various elements in comparison to a particular point of reference. For example, some embodiments of a device include a biointerface membrane having a cell disruptive domain and a cell impermeable domain. If the sensor is deemed to be the point of reference and the cell impermeable domain is positioned nearer to the sensor, then that domain is proximal to the sensor.


The term “cell processes” and the like refers to pseudopodia of a cell.


The term “solid portions” and the like refer to a material having a structure that may or may not have an open-cell configuration, but in either case prohibits whole cells from traveling through or residing within the material.


The term “substantial number” refers to the number of linear dimensions within a domain (e.g. pores or solid portions) in which greater than 50 percent of all dimensions are of the specified size, preferably greater than 75 percent and, most preferably, greater than 90 percent of the dimensions have the specified size.


The term “co-continuous” and the like refers to a solid portion wherein an unbroken curved line in three dimensions exists between any two points of the solid portion.


The term “biostable” and the like refers to materials that are relatively resistant to degradation by processes that are encountered in vivo.


The term “sensor” refers to the component or region of a device by which an analyte can be quantitated.


The term “analyte” refers to a substance or chemical constituent in a biological fluid (e.g., blood or urine) that is intended to be analyzed. A preferred analyte for measurement by analyte detection devices including the biointerface membranes of the present invention is glucose.


The terms “operably connected,” “operably linked,” and the like refer to one or more components being linked to another component(s) in a manner that allows transmission of signals between the components. For example, one or more electrodes may be used to detect the amount of analyte in a sample and convert that information into a signal; the signal may then be transmitted to an electronic circuit means. In this case, the electrode is “operably linked” to the electronic circuitry.


The term “electronic circuitry” refers to the components of a device required to process biological information obtained from a host. In the case of an analyte measuring device, the biological information is obtained by a sensor regarding a particular analyte in a biological fluid, thereby providing data regarding the amount of that analyte in the fluid. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,757,022, 5,497,772 and 4,787,398 describe suitable electronic circuit means that may be utilized with devices including the biointerface membrane of the present invention.


The phrase “member for determining the amount of glucose in a biological sample” refers broadly to any mechanism (e.g., enzymatic or non-enzymatic) by which glucose can be quantitated. For example, some embodiments of the present invention utilize a membrane that contains glucose oxidase that catalyzes the conversion of oxygen and glucose to hydrogen peroxide and gluconate: Glucose+O.sub.2=Gluconate+H.sub.2O.sub.2-. Because for each glucose molecule metabolized, there is a proportional change in the co-reactant O.sub.2 and the product H.sub.2O.sub.2, one can monitor the current change in either the co-reactant or the product to determine glucose concentration.


The term “host” refers generally to mammals, particularly humans.


The term “accurately” means, for example, 90% of measured glucose values are within the “A” and “B” region of a standard Clarke error grid when the sensor measurements are compared to a standard reference measurement. It is understood that like any analytical device, calibration, calibration validation and recalibration are required for the most accurate operation of the device.


The phrase “continuous glucose sensing” refers to the period in which monitoring of plasma glucose concentration is continuously performed, for example, about every 10 minutes.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is an illustration of classical three-layered foreign body response to a synthetic membrane implanted under the skin.



FIG. 2 is an illustration of a device having increased neovascularization within the intermediary layer of the foreign body response.



FIG. 3 is an illustration of a membrane of the present invention including a barrier-cell disruptive domain composed of fibers and a cell impermeable domain.



FIG. 4 is an illustration of a three dimensional section of the first domain showing the solid portions and cavities.



FIG. 5 is an illustration of a cross-section of the first domain in FIG. 4 showing solid portions and cavities.



FIG. 6A depicts a cross-sectional drawing of one embodiment of an implantable analyte measuring device for use in combination with a membrane according to the present invention.



FIG. 6B depicts a cross-sectional exploded view of the sensor head shown in FIG. 6A.



FIG. 6C depicts a cross-sectional exploded view of the electrode-membrane region set forth in FIG. 6B.



FIG. 7 is a graphical representation of the number of functional sensors versus time (i.e. weeks) comparing control devices including only a cell-impermeable domain (“Control”), with devices including a cell-impermeable domain and a barrier-cell domain, in particular, wherein the barrier-cell disruptive domain includes non-woven fiber (“Non-Woven Fibers”) and wherein the barrier-cell disruptive domain includes porous silicone (“Porous Silicone”).





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The present invention relates generally to novel biointerface membranes, their uses with implantable devices and methods for determining analyte levels in a biological fluid. More particularly, the invention provides biointerface membranes that may be utilized with implantable devices and methods for monitoring and determining glucose levels in a biological fluid, a particularly important measurement for individuals having diabetes.


Although the description that follows is primarily directed at glucose monitoring devices including the biointerface membranes of the present invention and methods for their use, these biointerface membranes are not limited to use in devices that measure or monitor glucose. Rather, these biointerface membranes may be applied to a variety of devices, including for example, those that detect and quantify other analytes present in biological fluids (including, but not limited to, cholesterol, amino acids and lactate), especially those analytes that are substrates for oxidase enzymes [see, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,703,756 to Gough et al., hereby incorporated by reference] cell transplantation devices (U.S. Pat. Nos.: 6,015,572, 5,964,745 and 6,083,523), drug delivery devices (U.S. Pat. Nos.: 5,458,631, 5,820,589 and 5,972,369) and electrical delivery and/or measuring devices such as implantable pulse generation cardiac pacing devices (U.S. Pat. Nos.: 6,157,860, 5,782,880 and 5,207,218), electrocardiogram device (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,625,730 and 5,987,352) and electrical nerve stimulating devices (U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,175,767, 6,055,456 and 4,940,065).


Implantable devices for detecting analyte concentrations in a biological system may utilize the biointerface membranes of the present invention to interfere with the formation of a barrier cell layer, thereby assuring that the sensor receives analyte concentrations representative of that in the vasculature. Drug delivery devices may utilize the biointerface membranes of the present invention to protect the drug housed within the device from host inflammatory or immune cells that might potentially damage or destroy the drug. In addition, the biointerface membrane prevents the formation of a barrier cell layer that might interfere with proper dispensing of drug from the device for treatment of the host. Correspondingly, cell transplantation devices may utilize the biointerface membranes of the present invention to protect the transplanted cells from attack by the host inflammatory or immune response cells while simultaneously allowing nutrients as well as other biologically active molecules needed by the cells for survival to diffuse through the membrane.


The materials contemplated for use in preparing the biointerface membrane also eliminate or significantly delay biodegradation. This is particularly important for devices that continuously measure analyte concentrations. For example, in a glucose-measuring device, the electrode surfaces of the glucose sensor are in contact with (or operably connected with) a thin electrolyte phase, which in turn is covered by a membrane that contains an enzyme, e.g., glucose oxidase, and a polymer system. The biointerface membrane covers this enzyme membrane and serves, in part, to protect the sensor from external forces and factors that may result in biodegradation. By significantly delaying biodegradation at the sensor, accurate data may be collected over long periods of time (e.g. months to years). Correspondingly, biodegradation of the biointerface membrane of implantable cell transplantation devices and drug delivery devices could allow host inflammatory and immune cells to enter these devices, thereby compromising long-term function.


Devices and probes that are implanted into subcutaneous tissue will almost always elicit a foreign body capsule (FBC) as part of the body's response to the introduction of a foreign material. Therefore, implantation of a glucose sensor results in an acute inflammatory reaction followed by building of fibrotic tissue. Ultimately, a mature FBC including primarily a vascular fibrous tissue forms around the device (Shanker and Greisler, Inflammation and Biomaterials in Greco R S, ed. Implantation Biology: The Host Response and Biomedical Devices, pp 68-80, CRC Press (1994)).


In general, the formation of a FBC has precluded the collection of reliable, continuous information because it was previously believed to isolate the sensor of the implanted device in a capsule containing fluid that did not mimic the levels of analytes (e.g. glucose and oxygen) in the body's vasculature. Similarly, the composition of a FBC has prevented stabilization of the implanted device, contributing to motion artifact that also renders unreliable results. Thus, conventionally, it has been the practice of those skilled in the art to attempt to minimize FBC formation by, for example, using a short-lived needle geometry or sensor coatings to minimize the foreign body reaction.


In contrast to conventionally known practice, the teachings of the present invention recognize that FBC formation is the dominant event surrounding long-term implantation of any sensor and must be managed to support rather than hinder or block sensor performance. It has been observed that during the early periods following implantation of an analyte-sensing device, particularly a glucose sensing device, glucose sensors function well. However, after a few days to two or more weeks of implantation, these device lose their function. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,791,344 and Gross et al. Performance Evaluation of the Minimed Continuous Monitoring System During Patient home Use”, Diabetes Technology and Therapuetics, Vol 2 Number 1, pp 49-56, 2000 have reported a glucose oxidase sensor (that has been approved for use in humans by the Food and Drug Administration) that functioned well for several days following implantation but loses function quickly after 3 days. We have observed similar device behavior with our implantable sensor. These results suggest that there is sufficient vascularization and, therefore, perfusion of oxygen and glucose to support the function of an implanted glucose sensor for the first few days following implantation. New blood vessel formation is clearly not needed for the function of a glucose oxidase mediated electrochemical sensor implanted in the subcutaneous tissue for at least several days after implantation.


We have observed that this lack of sensor function after several days is most likely due to cells, such as polymorphonuclear cells and monocytes that migrate to the wound site during the first few days after implantation. These cells consume glucose and oxygen. If there is an overabundance of such cells, they may deplete the glucose and/or oxygen before it is able to reach the sensor enzyme layer, therefore reducing the sensitivity of the device or rendering it non-functional. After the first few days, further inhibition of device function may be due to cells that associate with the membrane of the device and physically block the transport of glucose into the device (i.e. barrier cells). Increased vascularization would not be expected to overcome barrier cell blockage. The present invention contemplates the use of particular biointerface membrane architectures that interfere with barrier cell layer formation on the membrane's surface. The present invention also contemplates the use of these membranes with a variety of implantable devices (e.g. analyte measuring devices, particularly glucose measuring devices, cell transplantation devices, drug delivery devices and electrical signal delivery and measuring devices).


The sensor interface region refers to the region of a monitoring device responsible for the detection of a particular analyte. For example, in some embodiments of a glucose-monitoring device, the sensor interface refers to that region where a biological sample contacts (directly or after passage through one or more membranes or layers) an enzyme (e.g., glucose oxidase). The sensor interface region may include a biointerface membrane according to the present invention having different domains and/or layers that can cover and protect an underlying enzyme membrane and the electrodes of an implantable analyte-measuring device. In general, the biointerface membranes of the present invention prevent direct contact of the biological fluid sample with the sensor. The membranes only permit selected substances (e.g., analytes) of the fluid to pass therethrough for reaction in the immobilized enzyme domain. The biointerface membranes of the present invention are biostable and prevent barrier cell formation. The characteristics of this biointerface membrane are now discussed in more detail.


I. Biointerface Membrane


The biointerface membrane is constructed of two or more domains. Referring now to FIG. 3, preferably, the membrane includes a cell impermeable domain 50 proximal to an implantable device, also referred to as the second domain; and a cell disruptive domain, which in the embodiment illustrated includes non-woven fibers 49 distal to an implantable device, also referred to as the first domain.


A. Barrier-Cell Disruptive (First) Domain


As described above, the outermost domain of the inventive membrane includes a material that supports tissue ingrowth. The barrier-cell disruptive domain may be composed of an open-cell configuration having cavities and solid portions. For example, FIG. 4 is an illustration of a three dimensional section 60 of a barrier-cell disruptive domain having solid portions 62 and cavities 64. Cells may enter into the cavities, however, they can not travel through or wholly exist within the solid portions. The cavities allow most substances to pass through, including, e.g., macrophages.


The open-cell configuration yields a co-continuous solid domain that contains greater than one cavity in three dimensions substantially throughout the entirety of the membrane. In addition, the cavities and cavity interconnections may be formed in layers having different cavity dimensions.


In order to better describe the dimensions of cavities and solid portions, a two dimensional plane 66 cut through the barrier-cell disruptive domain can be utilized (FIG. 5). A dimension across a cavity 64 or solid portion 62 can be described as a linear line. The length of the linear line is the distance between two points lying at the interface of the cavity and solid portion. In this way, a substantial number of the cavities are not less than 20 microns in the shortest dimension and not more than 1000 microns in the longest dimension. Preferably, a substantial number of the cavities are not less than 25 microns in the shortest dimension and not more than 500 microns in the longest dimension.


Furthermore, the solid portion has not less than 5 microns in a substantial number of the shortest dimensions and not more than 2000 microns in a substantial number of the longest dimensions. Preferably, the solid portion is not less than 10 microns in a substantial number of the shortest dimensions and not more than 1000 microns in a substantial number of the longest dimensions and, most preferably, not less than 10 microns in a substantial number of the shortest dimensions and not more than 400 microns in a substantial number of the longest dimensions.


The solid portion may be comprised of polytetrafluoroethylene or polyethyleneco-tetrafluoroethylene. Preferably, the solid portion includes polyurethanes or block copolymers and, most preferably, is comprised of silicone.


In desired embodiments, the solid portion is composed of porous silicone or non-woven fibers. Non-woven fibers are preferably made from polyester or polypropylene. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates how the non-woven fibers 49 serve to disrupt the continuity of cells, such that they are not able to form a classical foreign body response. All the cell types that are involved in the formation of a FBR may be present. However, they are unable to form an ordered closely opposed cellular monolayer parallel to the surface of the device as in a typical foreign body response to a smooth surface. In this example, the 10-micron dimension provides a suitable surface for foreign body giant cells, but the fibers are in such proximity to allow and foster in growth of blood vessels 45 and vascularize the biointerface region (FIG. 3). Devices with smaller fibers have been used in previous inventions, but such membranes are prone to delamination due to the forces applied by cells in the interstices of the membrane. After delamination, cells are able to form barrier layers on the smooth or microporous surface of the bioprotective layer if it is adhesive to cells or has pores of sufficient size for physical penetration of cell processes, but not of whole cells.


When non-woven fibers are utilized as the solid portion of the present invention, the non-woven fibers may be greater than 5 microns in the shortest dimension. Preferably, the non-woven fibers are about 10 microns in the shortest dimension and, most preferably, the non-woven fibers are greater than or equal to 10 microns in the shortest dimension.


The non-woven fibers may be constructed of polypropylene (PP), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyurethanes, cellulosic polymers, polysulfones, and block copolymers thereof including, for example, di-block, tri-block, alternating, random and graft copolymers (block copolymers are discussed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,803,243 and 4,686,044, hereby incorporated by reference). Preferably, the non-woven fibers are comprised of polyolefins or polyester or polycarbonates or polytetrafluoroethylene.


The thickness of the cell disruptive domain is not less than about 20 microns and not more than about 2000 microns.


B. Cell Impermeable (Second) Domain


The inflammatory response that initiates and sustains a FBC is associated with disadvantages in the practice of sensing analytes. Inflammation is associated with invasion of inflammatory response cells (e.g. macrophages) which have the ability to overgrow at the interface forming barrier cell layers which may block transport across the biointerface membrane. These inflammatory cells may also biodegrade many artificial biomaterials (some of which were, until recently, considered nonbiodegradable). When activated by a foreign body, tissue macrophages degranulate, releasing from their cytoplasmic myeloperoxidase system hypochlorite (bleach) and other oxidative species. Hypochlorite and other oxidative species are known to break down a variety of polymers. However, polycarbonate based polyurethanes are believed to be resistant to the effects of these oxidative species and have been termed biodurable. In addition, because hypochlorite and other oxidizing species are short-lived chemical species in vivo, biodegradation will not occur if macrophages are kept a sufficient distance from the enzyme active membrane.


The present invention contemplates the use of cell impermeable biomaterials of a few microns thickness or more (i.e., a cell impermeable domain) in most of its membrane architectures. Desirably, the thickness of the cell impermeable domain is not less than about 10 microns and not more than about 100 microns. This domain of the biointerface membrane is permeable to oxygen and may or may not be permeable to glucose and is constructed of biodurable materials (e.g. for period of several years in vivo) that are impermeable by host cells (e.g. macrophages) such as, for example, polymer blends of polycarbonate based polyurethane and PVP.


The innermost domain of the inventive membrane is non-adhesive for cells (i.e. the cell impermeable domain), which is in contrast to the inventions of Brauker et al. (supra), and Shults et al. (supra). In both of these previous patents, examples are provided in which the cellimpenetrable membrane (Brauker et al.) or biointerface membrane (Shults et al.) are derived from a membrane known as Biopore™ as a cell culture support sold by Millipore (Bedford, Mass.). In the presence of certain extracellular matrix molecules, and also in vivo, many cell types are able to strongly adhere to this membrane making it incapable of serving as a non-adhesive domain. Further, since they allow adherence of cells to the innermost layer of the membrane they promote barrier cell layer formation that decreases the membranes ability to transport molecules across the device-tissue interface. Moreover, when these cells multiply, they ultimately cause pressure between the membrane layers resulting in delamination of the layers and catastrophic failure of the membrane.


As described above, in one embodiment of the inventive membrane, the second domain is resistant to cellular attachment and is impermeable to cells and preferably composed of a biostable material. The second domain may be formed from materials such as those previously listed for the first domain and as copolymers or blends with hydrophilic polymers such as polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate, polyvinylalcohol, polyacrylic acid, polyethers, such as polyethylene glycol, and block copolymers thereof including, for example, di-block, tri-block, alternating, random and graft copolymers (block copolymers are discussed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,803,243 and 4,686,044, hereby incorporated by reference).


Preferably, the second domain is comprised of a polyurethane and a hydrophilic polymer. Desirably, the hydrophilic polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone. In one embodiment of this aspect of the invention, the second domain is polyurethane comprising not less than 5 weight percent polyvinylpyrrolidone and not more than 45 weight percent polyvinylpyrrolidone. Preferably, the second domain comprises not less than 20 weight percent polyvinylpyrrolidone and not more than 35 weight percent polyvinylpyrrolidone and, most preferably, polyurethane comprising about 27 weight percent polyvinylpyrrolidone.


As described above, in one desired embodiment the cell impermeable domain is comprised of a polymer blend comprised of a non-biodegradable polyurethane comprising polyvinylpyrrolidone. This prevents adhesion of cells in vitro and in vivo and allows many molecules to freely diffuse through the membrane. However, this domain prevents cell entry or contact with device elements underlying the membrane, and prevents the adherence of cells, and thereby prevents the formation of a barrier cell layer.


II. Implantable Glucose Monitoring Devices Using the Biointerface Membranes of the Present Invention


The present invention contemplates the use of unique membrane architectures around the sensor interface of an implantable device. However, it should be pointed out that the present invention does not require a device including particular electronic components (e.g., electrodes, circuitry, etc). Indeed, the teachings of the present invention can be used with virtually any monitoring device suitable for implantation (or subject to modification allowing implantation); suitable devices include, analyte measuring devices, cell transplantation devices, drug delivery devices, electrical signal delivery and measurement devices and other devices such as those described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,703,756 and 4,994,167 to Shults et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,703,756 to Gough et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 4,431,004 to Bessman et al.; the contents of each being hereby incorporated by reference, and Bindra et al., Anal. Chem. 63:1692-96 (1991).


We refer now to FIG. 6A, which shows a preferred embodiment of an analyte measuring device for use in combination with a membrane according to the present invention. In this embodiment, a ceramic body 1 and ceramic head 10 houses the sensor electronics that include a circuit board 2, a microprocessor 3, a battery 4, and an antenna 5. Furthermore, the ceramic body 1 and head 10 possess a matching taper joint 6 that is sealed with epoxy. The electrodes are subsequently connected to the circuit board via a socket 8.


As indicated in detail in Fib. 6B, three electrodes protrude through the ceramic head 10, a platinum working electrode 21, a platinum counter electrode 22 and a silver/silver chloride reference electrode 20. Each of these is hermetically brazed 26 to the ceramic head 10 and further affixed with epoxy 28. The sensing region 24 is covered with the sensing membrane described below and the ceramic head 10 contains a groove 29 so that the membrane may be affixed into place with an o-ring.



FIG. 6C depicts a cross-sectional exploded view of the electrode-membrane region 24 set forth in FIG. 6B detailing the sensor tip and the functional membrane layers. As depicted in FIG. 6C, the electrode-membrane region includes the inventive biointerface membrane 33 and a sensing membrane 32. The top ends of the electrodes are in contact with the electrolyte phase 30, a free-flowing fluid phase. The electrolyte phase is covered by the sensing membrane 32 that includes an enzyme, e.g., glucose oxidase. In turn, the inventive interface membrane 33 covers the enzyme membrane 32 and serves, in part, to protect the sensor from external forces that may result in environmental stress cracking of the sensing membrane 32.


III. Experimental


The following examples serve to illustrate certain preferred embodiments and aspects of the present invention and are not to be construed as limiting the scope thereof


In the preceding description and the experimental disclosure which follows, the following abbreviations apply: Eq and Eqs (equivalents); mEq (milliequivalents); M (molar); mM (millimolar) .mu.M (micromolar); N (Normal); mol (moles); mmol (millimoles); .mu.mol (micromoles); nmol (nanomoles); g (grams); mg (milligrams); .mu.g (micrograms); Kg (kilograms); L (liters); mL (milliliters); dL (deciliters); .mu.L (microliters); cm (centimeters); mm (millimeters); .mu.m (micrometers); nm (nanometers); h and hr (hours); min. (minutes); s and sec. (seconds); .degree. C. (degrees Centigrade); Astor Wax (Titusville, Pa.); BASF Wyandotte Corporation (Parsippany, N.J.); Data Sciences, Inc. (St. Paul, Minn.); Douglas Hansen Co., Inc. (Minneapolis, Minn.); DuPont (DuPont Co., Wilmington, Del.); Exxon Chemical (Houston, Tex.); GAF Corporation (New York, N.Y.); Markwell Medical (Racine, Wis.); Meadox Medical, Inc. (Oakland, N.J.); Mobay (Mobay Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.); Sandoz (East Hanover, N.J.); and Union Carbide (Union Carbide Corporation; Chicago, Ill.).


EXAMPLE 1
Preparation of Biointerface Membrane with Non-Woven Fibers

The barrier-cell disruptive domain may be prepared from a non-woven polyester fiber filtration membrane. The cell-impermeable domain may then be coated on this domain layer. The cell-impermeable domain was prepared by placing approximately 706 gm of dimethylacetamide (DMAC) into a 3 L stainless steel bowl to which a polycarbonateurethane solution (1325 g, Chronoflex AR 25% solids in DMAC and a viscosity of 5100 cp) and polyvinylpyrrolidone (125 g, Plasdone K-90D) were added. The bowl was then fitted to a planetary mixer with a paddle type blade and the contents were stirred for 1 hour at room temperature. This solution was then coated on the barrier-cell disruptive domain by knife-edge drawn at a gap of 0.006″ and dried at 60.degree. C. for 24 hours. The membrane is then mechanically secured to the sensing device by an O-ring.


EXAMPLE 2
Preparation of Biointerface Membrane with Porous Silicone

The barrier-cell disruptive domain can be comprised of a porous silicone sheet. The porous silicone was purchased from Seare Biomatrix Systems, Inc. The cell-impermeable domain was prepared by placing approximately 706 gm of dimethylacetamide (DMAC) into a 3 L stainless steel bowl to which a polycarbonateurethane solution (1,325 gm, Chronoflex AR 25% solids in DMAC and a viscosity of 5100 cp) and polyvinylpyrrolidone (125 gm, Plasdone K-90D) were added. The bowl was then fitted to a planetary mixer with a paddle type blade and the contents were stirred for 1 hour at room temperature. The cell-impermeable domain coating solution was then coated onto a PET release liner (Douglas Hansen Co.) using a knife over roll set at a 0.012″ gap. This film was then dried at 305.degree. F. The final film was approximately 0.0015″ thick. The biointerface membrane was prepared by pressing the porous silicone onto the cast cell-impermeable domain. The membrane is then mechanically secured to the sensing device by an O-ring.


EXAMPLE 3
Test Method for Glucose Measuring Device Function

In vivo sensor function was determined by correlating the sensor output to blood glucose values derived from an external blood glucose meter. We have found that non-diabetic dogs do not experience rapid blood glucose changes, even after ingestion of a high sugar meal. Thus, a 10% dextrose solution was infused into the sensor-implanted dog. A second catheter is placed in the opposite leg for the purpose of blood collection. The implanted sensor was programmed to transmit at 30-second intervals using a pulsed electromagnet. A dextrose solution was infused at a rate of 9.3 ml/minute for the first 25 minutes, 3.5 ml/minute for the next 20 minutes, 1.5 ml/minute for the next 20 minutes, and then the infusion pump was powered off Blood glucose values were measured in duplicate every five minutes on a blood glucose meter (LXN Inc., San Diego, Calif.) for the duration of the study. A computer collected the sensor output. The data was then compiled and graphed in a spreadsheet, time aligned, and time shifted until an optimal R-squared value was achieved. The R-squared value reflects how well the sensor tracks with the blood glucose values.


EXAMPLE 4
In Vivo Evaluation of Glucose Measuring Devices Including the Biointerface Membranes of the Present Invention

To test the importance of a cell-disruptive membrane, implantable glucose sensors comprising the biointerface membranes of the present invention were implanted into dogs in the subcutaneous tissues and monitored for glucose response on a weekly basis. Control devices comprising only a cell-impermeable domain (“Control”) were compared with devices comprising a cell-impermeable domain and a barrier-cell disruptive domain, in particular, wherein the barrier-cell disruptive domain was either a non-woven fiber (“Non-Woven Fibers”) or porous silicone (“Porous Silicone”).


Four devices from each condition were implanted subcutaneously in the ventral abdomen of normal dogs. On a weekly basis, the dogs were infused with glucose as described in Example 3 in order to increase their blood glucose levels from about 120 mg/dl to about 300 mg/dl. Blood glucose values were determined with a LXN blood glucose meter at 5-minute intervals. Sensor values were transmitted at 0.5-minute intervals. Regression analysis was done between blood glucose values and the nearest sensor value within one minute. Devices that yielded an R-squared value greater than 0.5 were considered functional. FIG. 7 shows, for each condition, the number of functional devices over the 12-week period of the study. Both test devices performed better than the control devices over the first 9 weeks of the study. All of the porous silicone devices were functional by week 9. Two of 4 polypropylene fiber devices were functional by week 2, and 3 of 4 were functional on week 12. In contrast, none of the control devices were functional until week 10, after which 2 were functional for the remaining 3 weeks. These data clearly show that the use of a cell-disruptive layer in combination with a cell-impermeable layer improves the function of implantable glucose sensors.


The description and experimental materials presented above are intended to be illustrative of the present invention while not limiting the scope thereof It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that variations and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.

Claims
  • 1. An implantable device for continuous measurement of a glucose concentration, comprising: a sensing region configured to continuously measure a signal indicative of a glucose concentration in a host; anda membrane system located over the sensing region, wherein the membrane comprises a sensing membrane and a biointerface membrane, wherein the sensing membrane comprises an enzyme configured to catalyze a reaction with glucose as a reactant, wherein the biointerface membrane is configured to resist cellular attachment and is impermeable to cells and cell processes.
  • 2. The implantable device of claim 1, wherein the biointerface membrane comprises silicone.
  • 3. The implantable device of claim 1, wherein the biointerface membrane comprises a polyurethane.
  • 4. The implantable device of claim 3, wherein the polyurethane polymer is a copolymer.
  • 5. The implantable device of claim 4, wherein the copolymer comprises silicone.
  • 6. The implantable device of claim 1, wherein the biointerface membrane is configured to prevent with barrier-cell layer formation.
  • 7. The implantable device of claim 1, wherein the membrane system is configured to facilitate obtaining of a level of accuracy corresponding to having, over a period of time exceeding 5 days, 90% of measured analyte values within an “A” region and a “B” region of a standard Clarke error grid when sensor measurements are compared to a standard reference measurement.
  • 8. The implantable device of claim 1, wherein the membrane system has a thickness of from about 10 microns to about 100 microns.
  • 9. The implantable device of claim 1, wherein the biointerface membrane is configured to provide an interface with a biological fluid.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

Any and all priority claims identified in the Application Data Sheet, or any correction thereto, are hereby incorporated by reference under 37 CFR 1.57. This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/341,468 filed Jul. 25, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/633,578 filed Dec. 8, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,840,552, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/768,889 filed Jan. 29, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,632,228, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/916,386, filed Jul. 27, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,702,857. Each of the aforementioned applications is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety, and each is hereby expressly made a part of this specification.

US Referenced Citations (500)
Number Name Date Kind
3775182 Patton et al. Nov 1973 A
3898984 Mandel et al. Aug 1975 A
3929971 Roy Dec 1975 A
3943918 Lewis Mar 1976 A
3964974 Banauch et al. Jun 1976 A
3966580 Janata et al. Jun 1976 A
3979274 Newman Sep 1976 A
4024312 Korpman May 1977 A
4040908 Clark, Jr. Aug 1977 A
4073713 Newman Feb 1978 A
4076656 White et al. Feb 1978 A
4172770 Semersky et al. Oct 1979 A
4197840 Beck et al. Apr 1980 A
4215703 Willson Aug 1980 A
4225410 Pace Sep 1980 A
4240889 Yoda et al. Dec 1980 A
4253469 Aslan Mar 1981 A
4255500 Hooke Mar 1981 A
4259540 Sabia Mar 1981 A
4260725 Keogh et al. Apr 1981 A
4273636 Shimada et al. Jun 1981 A
4340458 Lerner et al. Jul 1982 A
4353368 Slovak et al. Oct 1982 A
4353888 Sefton Oct 1982 A
4374013 Enfors Feb 1983 A
4388166 Suzuki et al. Jun 1983 A
4403984 Ash et al. Sep 1983 A
4415666 D'Orazio et al. Nov 1983 A
4418148 Oberhardt Nov 1983 A
4431004 Bessman et al. Feb 1984 A
4436094 Cerami Mar 1984 A
4442841 Uehara et al. Apr 1984 A
4453537 Spitzer Jun 1984 A
4477314 Richter et al. Oct 1984 A
4484987 Gough Nov 1984 A
4494950 Fischell Jan 1985 A
4506680 Stokes Mar 1985 A
RE31916 Oswin et al. Jun 1985 E
4534355 Potter Aug 1985 A
4554927 Fussell Nov 1985 A
4571292 Liu et al. Feb 1986 A
4577642 Stokes Mar 1986 A
4603152 Laurin et al. Jul 1986 A
4650547 Gough Mar 1987 A
4663824 Kenmochi May 1987 A
4671288 Gough Jun 1987 A
4680268 Clark, Jr. Jul 1987 A
4686044 Behnke et al. Aug 1987 A
4689309 Jones Aug 1987 A
4702732 Powers et al. Oct 1987 A
4703756 Gough et al. Nov 1987 A
4711251 Stokes Dec 1987 A
4721677 Clark Jan 1988 A
4731726 Allen Mar 1988 A
4753652 Langer et al. Jun 1988 A
4757022 Shults et al. Jul 1988 A
4759828 Young et al. Jul 1988 A
4776944 Janata et al. Oct 1988 A
4781798 Gough Nov 1988 A
4787398 Garcia et al. Nov 1988 A
4803243 Fujimoto et al. Feb 1989 A
4805624 Yao et al. Feb 1989 A
4805625 Wyler Feb 1989 A
4810470 Burkhardt et al. Mar 1989 A
4823808 Clegg et al. Apr 1989 A
4852573 Kennedy Aug 1989 A
4861830 Ward, Jr. Aug 1989 A
4871440 Nagata et al. Oct 1989 A
4883057 Broderick Nov 1989 A
4889744 Quaid Dec 1989 A
4890620 Gough Jan 1990 A
4902294 Gosserez Feb 1990 A
4927407 Dorman May 1990 A
4935345 Guilbeau et al. Jun 1990 A
4953552 DeMarzo Sep 1990 A
4963595 Ward et al. Oct 1990 A
4970145 Bennetto et al. Nov 1990 A
4984929 Rock et al. Jan 1991 A
4986271 Wilkins Jan 1991 A
4986671 Sun et al. Jan 1991 A
4988341 Columbus et al. Jan 1991 A
4994167 Shults et al. Feb 1991 A
5002572 Picha Mar 1991 A
5007929 Quaid Apr 1991 A
5019096 Fox, Jr. et al. May 1991 A
5050612 Matsumura Sep 1991 A
5059654 Hou et al. Oct 1991 A
5067491 Taylor, II et al. Nov 1991 A
5101814 Palti Apr 1992 A
5108819 Heller et al. Apr 1992 A
5113871 Viljanto et al. May 1992 A
5130231 Kennedy et al. Jul 1992 A
5137028 Nishimura Aug 1992 A
5160418 Mullen Nov 1992 A
5165407 Wilson et al. Nov 1992 A
5171689 Kawaguri et al. Dec 1992 A
5190041 Palti Mar 1993 A
5222980 Gealow Jun 1993 A
5235003 Ward et al. Aug 1993 A
5249576 Golberger et al. Oct 1993 A
5264104 Gregg et al. Nov 1993 A
5269891 Colin Dec 1993 A
5271736 Picha Dec 1993 A
5282848 Schmitt Feb 1994 A
5285513 Kaufman et al. Feb 1994 A
5299571 Mastrototaro Apr 1994 A
5304468 Phillips et al. Apr 1994 A
5310469 Cunningham et al. May 1994 A
5314471 Brauker et al. May 1994 A
5316008 Suga et al. May 1994 A
5321414 Alden et al. Jun 1994 A
5322063 Allen et al. Jun 1994 A
5324322 Grill, Jr. et al. Jun 1994 A
5326356 Della Valle et al. Jul 1994 A
5328451 Davis et al. Jul 1994 A
5330521 Cohen Jul 1994 A
5331555 Hashimoto et al. Jul 1994 A
5340352 Nakanishi et al. Aug 1994 A
5342409 Mullett Aug 1994 A
5343869 Pross et al. Sep 1994 A
5344454 Clarke et al. Sep 1994 A
5348788 White Sep 1994 A
5356786 Heller et al. Oct 1994 A
5372133 Hogen Esch Dec 1994 A
5380536 Hubbell et al. Jan 1995 A
5384028 Ito Jan 1995 A
5387327 Khan Feb 1995 A
5390671 Lord et al. Feb 1995 A
5391250 Cheney, II et al. Feb 1995 A
5397848 Yang et al. Mar 1995 A
5411647 Johnson et al. May 1995 A
5417395 Fowler et al. May 1995 A
5421923 Clarke et al. Jun 1995 A
5428123 Ward et al. Jun 1995 A
5429735 Johnson et al. Jul 1995 A
5431160 Wilkins Jul 1995 A
5453278 Chan et al. Sep 1995 A
5458631 Xavier et al. Oct 1995 A
5462051 Oka et al. Oct 1995 A
5462064 D'Angelo et al. Oct 1995 A
5464013 Lemelson Nov 1995 A
5466356 Schneider et al. Nov 1995 A
5469846 Khan Nov 1995 A
5476094 Allen et al. Dec 1995 A
5480711 Ruefer Jan 1996 A
5484404 Schulman et al. Jan 1996 A
5491474 Suni et al. Feb 1996 A
5494562 Maley et al. Feb 1996 A
5496453 Uenoyama et al. Mar 1996 A
5497772 Schulman et al. Mar 1996 A
5507288 Bocker et al. Apr 1996 A
5508030 Bierman Apr 1996 A
5513636 Palti May 1996 A
5518601 Foos et al. May 1996 A
5529066 Palti Jun 1996 A
5531878 Vadgama et al. Jul 1996 A
5538511 Van Antwerp Jul 1996 A
5540828 Yacynych Jul 1996 A
5545220 Andrews et al. Aug 1996 A
5545223 Neuenfeldt et al. Aug 1996 A
5549675 Neuenfeldt et al. Aug 1996 A
5564439 Picha Oct 1996 A
5568806 Cheney, II et al. Oct 1996 A
5569186 Lord et al. Oct 1996 A
5569462 Martinson et al. Oct 1996 A
5571395 Park et al. Nov 1996 A
5575930 Tietje-Girault et al. Nov 1996 A
5578463 Berka et al. Nov 1996 A
5582184 Ericson et al. Dec 1996 A
5584813 Livingston et al. Dec 1996 A
5584876 Bruchman et al. Dec 1996 A
5586553 Halili et al. Dec 1996 A
5589133 Suzuki Dec 1996 A
5589563 Ward et al. Dec 1996 A
5590651 Shaffer et al. Jan 1997 A
5593440 Brauker et al. Jan 1997 A
5593852 Heller et al. Jan 1997 A
5683562 Schaffar et al. Jan 1997 A
5624537 Turner et al. Apr 1997 A
5628890 Carter et al. May 1997 A
5640954 Pfeiffer Jun 1997 A
5653756 Clarke et al. Aug 1997 A
5653863 Genshaw et al. Aug 1997 A
5658330 Carlisle et al. Aug 1997 A
5660163 Schulman et al. Aug 1997 A
5686829 Girault Nov 1997 A
5695623 Michel et al. Dec 1997 A
5704354 Priedel et al. Jan 1998 A
5706807 Picha Jan 1998 A
5711861 Ward et al. Jan 1998 A
5713888 Neuenfeldt et al. Feb 1998 A
5733336 Neuenfeldt et al. Mar 1998 A
5741319 Woloszko et al. Apr 1998 A
5741330 Brauker et al. Apr 1998 A
5743262 Lepper, Jr. et al. Apr 1998 A
5756632 Ward et al. May 1998 A
5776324 Usala Jul 1998 A
5777060 Van Antwerp Jul 1998 A
5779665 Mastrototaro et al. Jul 1998 A
5782912 Brauker et al. Jul 1998 A
5783054 Raguse et al. Jul 1998 A
5787900 Butler et al. Aug 1998 A
5791344 Schulman et al. Aug 1998 A
5795774 Matsumoto et al. Aug 1998 A
5798065 Picha Aug 1998 A
5800420 Gross Sep 1998 A
5800529 Brauker et al. Sep 1998 A
5804048 Wong et al. Sep 1998 A
5807375 Gross et al. Sep 1998 A
5807406 Brauker et al. Sep 1998 A
5811487 Schulz, Jr. et al. Sep 1998 A
5820622 Gross et al. Oct 1998 A
5833603 Kovacs et al. Nov 1998 A
5837728 Purcell Nov 1998 A
5840240 Stenoien et al. Nov 1998 A
5851197 Marano et al. Dec 1998 A
5861019 Sun et al. Jan 1999 A
5871514 Wiklund et al. Feb 1999 A
5882354 Brauker et al. Mar 1999 A
5882494 Van Antwerp Mar 1999 A
5897578 Wiklund et al. Apr 1999 A
5904708 Goedeke May 1999 A
5906817 Moullier et al. May 1999 A
5910554 Kempe et al. Jun 1999 A
5913998 Butler et al. Jun 1999 A
5914026 Blubaugh, Jr. et al. Jun 1999 A
5917346 Gord Jun 1999 A
5919215 Wiklund et al. Jul 1999 A
5931814 Alex et al. Aug 1999 A
5944661 Swette et al. Aug 1999 A
5957854 Besson et al. Sep 1999 A
5957903 Mirzaee et al. Sep 1999 A
5961451 Reber et al. Oct 1999 A
5964261 Neuenfeldt et al. Oct 1999 A
5964745 Lyles et al. Oct 1999 A
5964804 Brauker et al. Oct 1999 A
5964993 Blubaugh et al. Oct 1999 A
5965380 Heller et al. Oct 1999 A
5967986 Cimochowski et al. Oct 1999 A
5976085 Kimball et al. Nov 1999 A
5985129 Gough et al. Nov 1999 A
5999848 Gord et al. Dec 1999 A
6001067 Shults et al. Dec 1999 A
6001471 Bries et al. Dec 1999 A
6011984 Van Antwerp et al. Jan 2000 A
6013113 Mika Jan 2000 A
6016448 Busacker et al. Jan 2000 A
6049727 Crothall Apr 2000 A
6059946 Yukawa et al. May 2000 A
6060640 Pauley et al. May 2000 A
6063637 Arnold et al. May 2000 A
6066083 Slater et al. May 2000 A
6081736 Colvin et al. Jun 2000 A
6083710 Heller et al. Jul 2000 A
6088608 Schulman et al. Jul 2000 A
6091975 Daddona et al. Jul 2000 A
6093172 Funderburk et al. Jul 2000 A
6103033 Say et al. Aug 2000 A
6115634 Donders et al. Sep 2000 A
6117290 Say et al. Sep 2000 A
6119028 Schulman et al. Sep 2000 A
6121009 Heller et al. Sep 2000 A
6122536 Sun et al. Sep 2000 A
6134461 Say et al. Oct 2000 A
6135978 Houben et al. Oct 2000 A
6144869 Berner et al. Nov 2000 A
6144871 Saito et al. Nov 2000 A
6157880 Hauser et al. Dec 2000 A
6162611 Heller et al. Dec 2000 A
6167614 Tuttle et al. Jan 2001 B1
6175752 Say et al. Jan 2001 B1
6180416 Kurnik et al. Jan 2001 B1
6187062 Oweis et al. Feb 2001 B1
6189536 Martinez et al. Feb 2001 B1
6200772 Vadgama et al. Mar 2001 B1
6201980 Darrow et al. Mar 2001 B1
6206856 Mahurkar Mar 2001 B1
6208894 Schulman et al. Mar 2001 B1
6212416 Ward et al. Apr 2001 B1
6214185 Offenbacher et al. Apr 2001 B1
6223080 Thompson Apr 2001 B1
6223083 Rosar Apr 2001 B1
6230059 Duffin May 2001 B1
6231879 Li et al. May 2001 B1
6233471 Berner et al. May 2001 B1
6241863 Monbouquette Jun 2001 B1
6248067 Causey, III et al. Jun 2001 B1
6254586 Mann et al. Jul 2001 B1
6256522 Schultz Jul 2001 B1
6259937 Schulman et al. Jul 2001 B1
6268161 Han et al. Jul 2001 B1
6272364 Kurnik Aug 2001 B1
6272382 Faltys et al. Aug 2001 B1
6274285 Gries et al. Aug 2001 B1
6275717 Gross et al. Aug 2001 B1
6284478 Heller et al. Sep 2001 B1
6285897 Kilcoyne et al. Sep 2001 B1
6293925 Safabash et al. Sep 2001 B1
6296615 Brockway et al. Oct 2001 B1
6299578 Kurnik et al. Oct 2001 B1
6300002 Webb et al. Oct 2001 B1
6309351 Kurnik et al. Oct 2001 B1
6309384 Harrington et al. Oct 2001 B1
6325978 Labuda et al. Dec 2001 B1
6325979 Hahn et al. Dec 2001 B1
6326160 Dunn et al. Dec 2001 B1
6329161 Heller et al. Dec 2001 B1
6330464 Colvin, Jr. et al. Dec 2001 B1
6343225 Clark, Jr. Jan 2002 B1
6365670 Fry Apr 2002 B1
6366794 Moussy et al. Apr 2002 B1
6368274 Van Antwerp et al. Apr 2002 B1
6372244 Antanavich et al. Apr 2002 B1
6400974 Lesho Jun 2002 B1
6405066 Essenpreis et al. Jun 2002 B1
6406066 Uegane Jun 2002 B1
6409674 Brockway et al. Jun 2002 B1
6413393 Van Antwerp et al. Jul 2002 B1
6424847 Mastrototaro et al. Jul 2002 B1
6442413 Silver Aug 2002 B1
6447448 Ishikawa et al. Sep 2002 B1
6447542 Weadock Sep 2002 B1
6454710 Ballerstadt et al. Sep 2002 B1
6459917 Gowda et al. Oct 2002 B1
6461496 Feldman et al. Oct 2002 B1
6466810 Ward et al. Oct 2002 B1
6471689 Joseph et al. Oct 2002 B1
6475750 Han et al. Nov 2002 B1
6477392 Honigs et al. Nov 2002 B1
6477395 Schulman et al. Nov 2002 B2
6481440 Gielen et al. Nov 2002 B2
6484046 Say et al. Nov 2002 B1
6497729 Moussy et al. Dec 2002 B1
6498043 Schulman et al. Dec 2002 B1
6514718 Heller Feb 2003 B2
6520997 Pekkarinen et al. Feb 2003 B1
6527729 Turcott Mar 2003 B1
6528584 Kennedy et al. Mar 2003 B2
6537318 Ita et al. Mar 2003 B1
6541107 Zhong et al. Apr 2003 B1
6545085 Kilgour et al. Apr 2003 B2
6546268 Ishikawa et al. Apr 2003 B1
6547839 Zhang et al. Apr 2003 B2
6551496 Moles et al. Apr 2003 B1
6558321 Burd et al. May 2003 B1
6560471 Heller et al. May 2003 B1
6565509 Say et al. May 2003 B1
6569521 Sheridan et al. May 2003 B1
6579498 Eglise Jun 2003 B1
6585763 Keilman et al. Jul 2003 B1
6587705 Kim et al. Jul 2003 B1
6591125 Buse et al. Jul 2003 B1
6607509 Bobroff et al. Aug 2003 B2
6613379 Ward et al. Sep 2003 B2
6615078 Burson et al. Sep 2003 B1
6618934 Feldman et al. Sep 2003 B1
6642015 Vachon et al. Nov 2003 B2
6645181 Lavi et al. Nov 2003 B1
6648821 Lebel et al. Nov 2003 B2
6654625 Say et al. Nov 2003 B1
6666821 Keimel Dec 2003 B2
6683535 Utke Jan 2004 B1
6694191 Starkweather et al. Feb 2004 B2
6695860 Ward et al. Feb 2004 B1
6699218 Flaherty et al. Mar 2004 B2
6702857 Brauker et al. Mar 2004 B2
6702972 Markle Mar 2004 B1
6721587 Gough Apr 2004 B2
6731976 Penn et al. May 2004 B2
6740075 Ebel et al. May 2004 B2
6741877 Shults et al. May 2004 B1
6773565 Kunimoto et al. Aug 2004 B2
6793632 Sohrab Sep 2004 B2
6793802 Lee et al. Sep 2004 B2
6804544 van Antwerp et al. Oct 2004 B2
6810290 Lebel et al. Oct 2004 B2
6862465 Shults et al. Mar 2005 B2
6895263 Shin et al. May 2005 B2
6931327 Goode et al. Aug 2005 B2
6936006 Sabra Aug 2005 B2
6952604 DeNuzzio et al. Oct 2005 B2
6991643 Saadat Jan 2006 B2
7058437 Buse et al. Jun 2006 B2
7074307 Simpson et al. Jul 2006 B2
7081195 Simpson et al. Jul 2006 B2
7108778 Simpson et al. Sep 2006 B2
7110803 Shults et al. Sep 2006 B2
7134999 Brauker et al. Nov 2006 B2
7136689 Shults et al. Nov 2006 B2
7153265 Vachon Dec 2006 B2
7166074 Reghabi et al. Jan 2007 B2
7169289 Schulein et al. Jan 2007 B2
7192450 Brauker et al. Mar 2007 B2
7225535 Feldman et al. Jun 2007 B2
7329239 Safabash et al. Feb 2008 B2
7344499 Prausnitz et al. Mar 2008 B1
7364592 Carr-Brendel et al. Apr 2008 B2
7404819 Darios et al. Jul 2008 B1
7417164 Suri Aug 2008 B2
7426408 DeNuzzio et al. Sep 2008 B2
7632228 Brauker et al. Dec 2009 B2
7657297 Simpson et al. Feb 2010 B2
20020022883 Burg Feb 2002 A1
20020042090 Heller et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020055673 Van Antwerp et al. May 2002 A1
20020151796 Koulik Oct 2002 A1
20020151816 Rich et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020169369 Ward et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020182241 Boerenstein et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188185 Sohrab Dec 2002 A1
20020193885 Legeay et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030006669 Pei et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030023317 Brauker et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030032874 Rhodes et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030036803 McGhan et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030059631 Al-Lamee Mar 2003 A1
20030070548 Clausen Apr 2003 A1
20030076082 Morgan et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030078481 McIvor et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030078560 Miller et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030091433 Tam et al. May 2003 A1
20030125613 Enegren et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030130616 Steil et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030181794 Rini et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030188427 Say et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030199744 Buse et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030199745 Burson et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030217966 Tapsak et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030225361 Sabra Dec 2003 A1
20030235817 Bartkowiak et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040010207 Flaherty Jan 2004 A1
20040011671 Shults et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015063 DeNuzzio et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015134 Lavi et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040030285 Lavi et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030294 Mahurkar Feb 2004 A1
20040039406 Jessen Feb 2004 A1
20040045879 Shults et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040068230 Estes et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040087671 Tamada et al. May 2004 A1
20040106857 Gough Jun 2004 A1
20040186362 Brauker et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040186365 Jin et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040199059 Brauker et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040219664 Heller et al. Nov 2004 A1
20050008671 Van Antwerp Jan 2005 A1
20050027180 Goode et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050027181 Goode et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050027463 Goode et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050031689 Shults et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050033132 Shults et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050043598 Goode et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050051427 Brauker et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050054909 Petisce et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050056552 Simpson et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050059871 Gough et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050090607 Tapsak et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050096519 DeNuzzio et al. May 2005 A1
20050112169 Brauker et al. May 2005 A1
20050121322 Say Jun 2005 A1
20050192557 Brauker et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050211571 Schulein et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050242479 Petisce et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050245795 Goode et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050245799 Brauker et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050251083 Carr-Brendel et al. Nov 2005 A1
20060015020 Neale et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060200022 Brauker et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060211921 Brauker et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060224108 Brauker et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060257995 Simpson et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060257996 Simpson et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060263763 Simpson et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060270922 Brauker et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060270923 Brauker et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060281985 Ward et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070027370 Brauker et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070032718 Shults et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070045902 Brauker et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070235331 Simpson et al. Oct 2007 A1
20080045824 Tapsak et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080187655 Markle et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080188722 Markle et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080188725 Markle et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080228051 Shults et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080228054 Shults et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080242961 Brister Oct 2008 A1
20080305009 Gamsey et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080305506 Suri Dec 2008 A1
20090018418 Markle et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090018426 Markle et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090030297 Miller et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090036763 Brauker et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090061528 Suri Mar 2009 A1
20090062633 Brauker et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090081803 Gamsey et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090177143 Markle et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090264719 Markle et al. Oct 2009 A1
20100160760 Shults et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100256779 Brauker et al. Oct 2010 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (51)
Number Date Country
0 098 592 Jan 1984 EP
0 107 634 May 1984 EP
0 127 958 Dec 1984 EP
0 320 109 Jun 1989 EP
0 353 328 Feb 1990 EP
0 390 390 Oct 1990 EP
0 534 074 Mar 1993 EP
0 535 898 Apr 1993 EP
0 563 795 Oct 1993 EP
0 776 628 Jun 1997 EP
0 817 809 Jan 1998 EP
0 885 932 Dec 1998 EP
2656423 Jun 1991 FR
2760962 Sep 1998 FR
1 442 303 Jul 1976 GB
2149918 Jun 1985 GB
62083849 Apr 1997 JP
WO 1989-002720 Apr 1989 WO
WO 1990-000738 Jan 1990 WO
WO 1992-007525 May 1992 WO
WO 1992-013271 Aug 1992 WO
WO 1993-014693 Aug 1993 WO
WO 1993-019701 Oct 1993 WO
WO 1994-022367 Oct 1994 WO
WO 1995-007109 Mar 1995 WO
WO 1996-001611 Jan 1996 WO
WO 1996-014026 May 1996 WO
WO 1996-025089 Aug 1996 WO
WO 1996-030431 Oct 1996 WO
WO 1996-032076 Oct 1996 WO
WO 1996-036296 Nov 1996 WO
WO 1997-001986 Jan 1997 WO
WO 1997-043633 Nov 1997 WO
WO 1998-024358 Jun 1998 WO
WO 1998-038906 Sep 1998 WO
WO 1999-056613 Apr 1999 WO
WO 2000-013003 Mar 2000 WO
WO 2000-019887 Apr 2000 WO
WO 2000-032098 Jun 2000 WO
WO 2000-033065 Jun 2000 WO
WO 2000-059373 Oct 2000 WO
WO 2000-074753 Dec 2000 WO
WO 2001-012158 Feb 2001 WO
WO 2001-020019 Mar 2001 WO
WO 2001-020334 Mar 2001 WO
WO 2001-034243 May 2001 WO
WO 2001-043660 Jun 2001 WO
WO 2001-088524 Nov 2001 WO
WO 2001-088534 Nov 2001 WO
WO 2002-053764 Jul 2002 WO
WO 2003-101862 Dec 2003 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (378)
Entry
Aalders et al., 1991. Development of a wearable glucose sensor; studies in healthy volunteers and in diabetic patients. The International Journal of Artificial Organs 14(2):102-108.
Abe et al., 1992. Characterization of glucose microsensors for intracellular measurements. Analytical Chemistry 64(18):2160-2163.
Abel et al., 1984. Experience with an implantable glucose sensor as a prerequisite of an artificial beta cell. Biomed. Biochim. Acta 43(5):577-584.
Abel et al., 2002. Biosensors for in vivo glucose measurement: can we cross the experimental stage. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 17:1059-1070.
Alcock & Turner, 1994, Continuous Analyte Monitoring to Aid Clinical Practice. IEEE Transactions on Engineering in Med. & Biol. Mag. 13:319-325.
Amato et al., Jun. 1989. Experience with the Polytetrafluoroethylene Surgical e brane for Pericardial Closure in Operations for Congenital Cardiac Defects, J Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery 97(6): 929-934.
American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition. 2000. Houghton Mifflin Company, p. 82.
Answers.com. “xenogenic.” The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002. Answers.com, downloaded Nov. 7, 2006 from http://www.answers.com-topic-xenogenic.
Armour et al., Dec. 1990. Application of Chronic Intravascular Blood Glucose Sensor in Dogs. Diabetes 39:1519-1526.
Atanasov et al., 1994. Biosensor for continuous glucose monitoring, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 43:262-266.
Atanasov et al., 1997. Implantation of a refillable glucose monitoring-telemetry device. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 12:669 680.
Aussedat et al., 1997. A user-friendly method for calibrating a subcutaneous glucose sensor-based hypoglycaemic alarm. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 12(11):1061-1071.
Baker et al., 1993. Dynamic concentration challenges for biosensor characterization, Biosensors & Bioelectronics 8:433-441.
Bani Amer, M. M. 2002. An accurate amperometric glucose sensor based glucometer with eliminated cross-sensitivity. J Medical Engineering Technology 26(5):208-213.
Beach et al., 1999. Subminiature implantable potentiostat and modified commercial telemetry device for remote glucose monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 48(6):1239-1245.
Bellucci et al., Jan. 1986. Electrochemical behaviour of graphite-epoxy composite materials (GECM) in aqueous salt solutions. Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 16(1): 15-22.
Bessman et al., 1973, Progress toward a glucose sensor for the artificial pancreas. Proceedings of a Workshop on Ion-Selective Microelectrodes, Jun. 4-5, 1973, Boston, MA, pp. 189-197.
Bindra et al., 1989. Pulsed amperometric detection of glucose in biological fluids at a surface-modified gold electrode. Analytical Chemistry 61:2566-2570.
Bindra et al., 1991. Design and in Vitro Studies of a Needle-Type Glucose Sensor for Subcutaneous Monitoring. Analytical Chemistry 63:1692-1696.
Bisenberger et al., 1995. A triple-step potential waveform at enzyme multisensors with thick-film gold electrodes for detection of glucose and sucrose. Sensors and Actuators B 28:181-189.
Bland et al., 1990. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput. Biol. Med. 20(5)337-340.
Bobbioni-Harsch et al., 1993. Lifespan of subcutaneous glucose sensors and their performances during dynamic glycaemia changes in rats. J. Biomedical Engineering 15:457-463.
Bode et al., 1999. Continuous glucose monitoring used to adjust diabetes therapy improves glycosylated hemoglobin: A pilot study, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 46:183-190.
Bode et al., 2000. Using the continuous glucose monitoring system to improve the management of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):543-548.
Bode, B. W. 2000. Clinical utility of the continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):S35-S41.
Boland et al., 2001. Limitations of conventional ethods of self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 24(11): 1858-1862.
Bott, A. W. 1997. A Comparison of Cyclic Voltammetry and Cyclic Staircase Voltammetry, Current Separations 16(1):23-26.
Bowman, L.; Meindl, J. D. 1986. The packaging of implantable integrated sensors. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (BME) 33(2):248-255.
Brauker et al., 1995. Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane Microarchitecture. J. Biomedical Materials Research 29:1517-1524.
Brauker et al., 1998, Sustained expression of high levels of human factor IX from human cells implanted within an immunoisolation device into athymic rodents. Human Gene Therapy 9:879-888.
Brauker et al., 2001. Unraveling Mysteries at the Biointerface: Molecular Mediator of Inhibition of Blood vessel Formation in the Foreign Body Capsule Revealed, Surfacts Biomaterials 6. 1-5.
Brauker et al., Jun. 27, 1996. Local Inflammatory Response Around Diffusion Chambers Containing Xenografts. Transplantation 61(12):1671-1677.
Brauker J., 1992. Abstract:. Neovascularization of Cell Transplantation Devices: Membrane Architecture—Driven an Implanted Tissue-Driven Vascularization. Baxter Healthcare Corp. Abstract from 4th World Biomaterials Congress, Berlin.
Bremer et al., 2001. Benchmark data from the literature for evaluation of new glucose sensing technologies. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 3(3):409-418.
Brooks et al., 1987-88. Development of an on-line glucose sensor for fermentation monitoring. Biosensors 3:45-56.
Bruckel et al., 1989. In vivo measurement of subcutaneous glucose concentrations with an enzymatic glucose sensor and a wick method. Kiln Wochenschr 67:491-495.
Brunner et al., 1998, Validation of home blood glucose meters with respect to clinical and analytical approaches. Diabetes Care 21(4):585-590.
Cal et al., 2004. A wireless, remote query glucose biosensor based on a pH-sensitive polymer. Analytical Chemistry 76(4):4038-4043.
Campanella et al., 1993. Biosensor for direct determination of glucose and lactate in undiluted biological fluids. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 8:307-314.
Candas et al., 1994. An adaptive plasma glucose controller based on a nonlinear insulin-glucose model. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 41(2): 116-124.
Cass et al., 1984, Ferrocene-mediated enzyme electrodes for amperometric determination of glucose. Analytical Chemistry 36:667-671.
Cassidy et al., Apr. 1993. Novel electrochemical device for the detection of cholesterol or glucose. Analyst 118:415-418.
Chase et al., 2001. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatrics 107:222-226.
Chatterjee et al., 1997. Poly(ether Urethane) and poly(ether urethane urea) membranes with high H2S-CH4 selectivity. Journal of Membrane Science 135:99-106.
Ciba® Irgacure® 2959 Photoinitiator, Product Description, Ciba Specialty Chemicals Inc., Basel, Switzerland, Apr. 2, 1998.
Claremont et al., 1986. Subcutaneous implantation of a ferrocene-mediated glucose sensor in pigs. Diabetologia 29:817-821.
Claremont et al., Jul. 1986, Potentially-implantable, ferrocene-mediated glucose sensor. J. Biomedical Engineering 8:272-274.
Clark et al., 1981. One-minute electrochemical enzymic assay for cholesterol in biological materials. Clinical Chemistry 27(12):1978-1982.
Clark et al., 1987. Configurational cyclic voltammetry: increasing the specificity and reliability of implanted electrodes. IEEE—Ninth Annual Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp, 0782-0783.
Clark et al., 1988. Long-term stability of electroenzymatic glucose sensors implanted in mice. Transactions of the American Society of Artificial Internal Organs 34:259-265.
Colangelo et al., 1967. Corrosion rate measurements in vivo. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 1:405-414.
Colowick et al., 1976. Methods in Enzymology, vol. XLIV, Immobilized Enzymes. New York: Academic Press.
Copeland et al., Jun. 2001. Synthetic Membrane Neo-Pericardium Facilitates Total Artificial Heart Explantation, J Heart and Lung Transplantation 20(6): 654-656.
Cox et al., 1985. Accuracy of perceiving blood glucose in IDDM. Diabetes Care 8(6):529-536.
Csoregi et al., 1994. Design, characterization, and one-point in vivo calibration of a subcutaneously implanted glucose electrode. Analytical Chemistry 66(19):3131-3138.
Dal et al., 1999. Hydrogel Membranes with Mesh Size Asymmetry Based on the Gradient Crosslink of Poly(vinyl alcohol). Journal of Membrane Science 156:67-79.
Danielsson et al., 1988. Enzyme thermistors. Methods in Enzymology 137:181-197.
D'Arrigo et al., 2003. Porous-Si based bioreactors for glucose monitoring and drugs production. Prot of SPIE 4982:178-184.
Davies, et al., 1992. Polymer membranes in clinical sensor applications. I. An overview of membrane function. Biomaterials 13(14):971-978.
Davis et al., Sep. 1983. Bioelectrochemicai fuel cell and sensor based on a quinoprotein, alcohol dehydrogenase. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 5:383-388.
Direct 30-30® meter (Markwell Medical) in 1998 (Catalog), 1990.
Dixon et al., 2002. Characterization in vitro and in vivo of the oxygen dependence of an enzyme-polymer biosensor for monitoring brain glucose. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 119:135-142.
DuPont1 Dimension AR® (Catalog), 1998.
Durliat et al., 1976. Spectrophotometric and electrochemical of L(+)-lactate in blood by use of lactate dehydrogenase from yeast. Clinical Chemistry 22(11): 1802-1805.
El Degheidy et al., 1986. Optimization of an implantable coated wire glucose sensor. J. Biomed Eng. 8: 121-129.
El-Sa'ad et al., 1990. Moisture Absorption by Epoxy Resins: the Reverse Thermal Effect. Journal of Materials Science 25:3577-3582.
Ernst et al., 2002. Reliable glucose monitoring through the use of microsystem technology. Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry 373:758-761.
Fare et al., 1998. Functional characterization of a conducting polymer-based immunoassay system. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 13(3-4):459-470.
Feldman et al., 2003. A continuous glucose sensor based on wired enzyme technology—results from a 3-day trial in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 5(5):769-779.
Fischer et al., 1987. Assessment of subcutaneous glucose concentration: validation of the wick technique as a reference for implanted electrochemical sensors in normal and diabetic dogs. Diabetologia 30:940-945.
Fischer et al., 1989. Oxygen Tension at the Subcutaneous Implantation Site of Glucose Sensors. Biomed. Biochem 11-12:965-972.
Fischer et al., 1995. Abstract: Hypoglycaemia—warning by means of subcutaneous electrochemical glucose sensors: an animal study. Horm. Metab. Res. 27:53.
Freedman et al., 1991. Statistics, Second Norton & Company, p. 74.
Frohnauer et al., 2001. Graphical human insulin time-activity profiles using standardized definitions. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 3(3):419-429.
Frost et al., 2002. Implantable chemical sensors for real-time clinical monitoring: Progress and challenges. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 6:633-641.
Gao et al., 1989. Determination of Interfacial parameters of cellulose acetate membrane materials by HPLC. J. Liquid Chromatography 12(11):2083-2092.
Garg et al., 2004 . Improved Glucose Excursions Using an Implantable Real-Time continuous Glucose Sensor in Adults with Type I Diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:734-738.
Geller et al., 1997. Use of an immunoisolation device for cell transplantation and tumor immunotherapy. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 831:438-451.
Gerritsen et al., 1999. Performance of subcutaneously implanted glucose sensors for continuous monitoring. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 54:167-179.
Gerritsen et al., 2001. Influence of inflammatory cells and serum on the performance of implantable glucose sensors, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 54:69-75.
Gerritsen, M. 2000. Problems associated subcutaneously implanted glucose sensors. Diabetes Care 23(2):143-145.
Gilligan et al., 1994. Evaluation of a subcutaneous glucose sensor out to 3 months in a dog model. Diabetes Care 17(8):882-887.
Gilligan et al., 2004. Feasibility of continuous long-term glucose monitoring from a subcutaneous glucose sensor in humans. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 6:378-386.
Godsland et al., 2001. Maximizing the Success Rate of Minimal Model Insulin Sensitivity Measurement in Humans: The Importance of Basal Glucose Levels. The Biochemical Society and the Medical Research Society, pp. 1-9.
Gore Preclude® Pericardial Membrane Brochure, Jun. 2009, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ 86004.
Gough et al., 2000. Immobilized glucose oxidase in implantable glucose sensor technology. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(3):377-380.
Gregg et al., 1990. Cross-Linked Redox Gels Containing Glucose Oxidase for Amperometric Biosensor Applications. Analytical Chemistry 62:258-263.
Gross et al., 2000. Efficacy and reliability of the continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):S19-S26.
Gross et al., 2000. Performance evaluation of the MiniMed® continuous glucose monitoring system during patient home use. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(1):49-56 (2000) & 3(1):130-131 (2001).
Guo et al., 1998. Modification of cellulose acetate ultrafiltration membrane by gamma ray radiation. Shuichuli Jishi Bianji Weiyuanhui 23(6):315-318 (Abstract).
Hall et al., 1998. Electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen peroxide at platinum electrodes. Part II: Effect of potential. Electrochimica Acta 43(14-15):2015-2024.
Hall et al., 1998. Electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen peroxide at platinum electrodes. Part I: An adsorption-controlled mechanism. Electrochimica Acta 43(5-6):579-588.
Hall et al., 1999. Electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen peroxide at platinum electrodes. Part III: Effect of temperature. Electrochimica Acta 44:2455-2462.
Hall et al., 1999. Electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen peroxide at platinum electrodes. Part IV: Phosphate buffer dependence. Electrochimica Acta 44:4573-4582.
Hall et al., 2000. Electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen peroxide at platinum electrodes. Part V: Inhibition by chloride. Electrochimica Acta 45:3573-3579.
Harada et al., Nov. 1988. Long-term Results of the Clinical Use of an Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Surgical Membrane as a Pericardial Substitute. J Thorac Cardiovascular Surgery 96(5): 811-815.
Harrison et al., 1988. Characterization of perfluorosulfonic acid polymer coated enzyme electrodes and a miniaturized integrated potentiostat for glucose analysis in whole blood. Analytical Chemistry 60:2002-2007.
Hashiguchi et al., 1994. Development of a miniaturized glucose monitoring system by combining a needle-type glucose sensor with microdialysis sampling method: Long-term subcutaneous tissue glucose monitoring in ambulatory diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 17(5): 387-396.
Heller, 1990. Electrical wiring of redox enzymes. Acc. Chem. Res. 23:128-134.
Heller, A. 1992. Electrical Connection of Enzyme Redox Centers to Electrodes. J. Physical Chemistry 96:3579-3587.
Heller, A. 1999. Implanted electrochemical glucose sensors for the management of diabetes. Annu Rev Biomedical Engineering 1:153-175.
Heller, A. 2003. Plugging metal connectors into enzymes. Nature Biotechnology 21:631-632.
Heydorn et al., Aug. 1987. A New Look at Pericardial Substitutes. J Thorac Cardiovascular Surgery 94(2): 291-296.
Hicks, 1985. In Situ Monitoring. Clinical Chemistry 31(12):1931-1935.
Hitchman, M. L. 1978. Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen. In Elving et al. (Eds.). Chemical Analysis vol. 49, Chap. 3, pp. 34-49, 59-123. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoel, Paul G. 1976. Elementary Statistics, Fourth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. pp. 113-114.
Hrapovic et al., 2003. Picoamperometric detection of glucose at ultrasmall platinum-based biosensors: preparation and characterization. Analytical Chemistry 75:3308-3315.
Hu, et al., 1993. A needle-type enzyme-based lactate sensor for in vivo monitoring. Analytica Chimica Acta 281:503-511.
Huang et al., Aug. 1975, Electrochemicai Generation of Oxygen. 1: The Effects of Anions and Cations on Hydrogen Chemisorption and Anodic Oxide Film Formation on Platinum Electrode. 2: The Effects of Anions and Cations on Oxygen Generation on Platinum Electrode. U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Informaticn Service N7625362.
Huang et al., Sep. 1997. A 0.5mW Passive Telemetry IC for Biomedical Applications. Proceedings of the 23rd European Solid-State Circuits Conferences (ESSCIRC '97), Southampton, UK, pp. 172-175.
Hunter et al., 2000. Minimally Invasive Glucose Sensor and Insulin Delivery System. MIT Home Automation and Healthcare Consortium, Progress Report No. 25.
Ishikawa et al., 1998. Initial evaluation of a 290-mm diameter subcutaneous glucose sensor: Glucose monitoring with a biocompatible, flexible-wire, enzyme-based amperometric microsensor in diabetic and nondiabetic humans. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 12:295-301.
Jaffari et al., 1995. Recent advances in amperometric glucose biosensors for in vivo monitoring. Physiol. Meas. 16: 1-15.
Jensen et al., 1997. Fast wave forms for pulsed electrochemicai detection of glucose by incorporation of reductive desorption of oxidation products. Analytical Chemistry 69(9): 1776-1781.
Jeutter, D. C. 1982. A transcutaneous implanted battery recharging and biotelemeter power switching system. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 29:314-321.
Jobst et al., 1996. Thin-Film Microbiosensors for Glucose-Lactate Monitoring. Analytical Chemistry 68(18): 3173-3179.
Johnson 1991, Reproducible electrodeposition of biomolecules for the fabrication of miniature electroenzymatic biosensors. Sensors and Actuators B 5:85-89.
Johnson et al., 1992. In vivo evaluation of an electroenzymatic glucose sensor implanted in subcutaneous tissue. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 7:709-714.
Johnson et al., 1997. Abstract: Neovascularization of cell transplantation devices: Role of membrane architecture and encapsulated tissue, Abstracts of Papers. Am. Chem. Soc. 214:305-PMSE.
Jovanovic, L. 2000. The role of continuous glucose monitoring in gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1): S67-S71.
Kacaniklic et al., May-Jun. 1994. Amperometric Biosensors for Detection of L- and D-Amino Acids Based on Coimmobilized Peroxidase and L- and D-Amino Acid Oxidases in Carbon Paste Electrodes. Electroanalysis 6(5-6):381-390.
Kang et al., 2003. In vitro and short-term in vivo characteristics of a Kel-F thin film modified glucose sensor. Analytical Science 19:1481-1486.
Kargol et al., 2001. Studies on the structural properties of porous membranes: measurement of linear dimensions of solutes. Biophys. Chem. 91:263-271.
Karubeetal. 1993. Microbiosensors for acetylcholine and glucose. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 8:219-228.
Kaufman et al., 2001. A pilot study of the continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Care 24(12):2030-2034.
Kaufman. 2000. Role of the continuous glucose monitoring system in pediatric patients. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Supp 1):S49 S52.
Kawagoe et al., 1991. Enzyme-modified organic conducting salt microelectrode. Analytical Chemistry 63:2961-2965.
Keedyetal. 1991. Determination of urate in undiluted whole blood by enzyme electrode. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 6: 491-499.
Kerner et al., 1988. A potentially implantable enzyme electrode for amperometric measurement of glucose. Horm Metab Res Suppl. 20:8-13.
Kerner et al., 1993. The function of a hydrogen peroxide—detecting electroenzymatic glucose electrode is markedly impaired in human sub-cutaneous tissue and plasma. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 8:473-482.
Kiechle, F.L, 2001. The impact of continuous glucose monitoring on hospital point-of-care testing programs. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 3:647-649.
Ko, Wen H. 1985. Implantable Sensors for Closed-Loop Prosthetic Systems, Futura Pub. Co., Inc., Mt. Kisco, NY, Chapter 15, pp. 197-210.
Kondo et al., 1982. A miniature glucose sensor, implantable in the blood stream. Diabetes Care 5(3):218-221.
Koschinsky et al., 1988. New approach to technical and clinical evaluation of devices for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 11 (8):619-619.
Koschinsky et al., 2001. Sensors for glucose monitoring: Technical and clinical aspects, Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 17:113-123.
Kost et al., 1985. Glucose-sensitive membranes containing glucose oxidase: activity, swelling, and permeability studies. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 19:1117-1133.
Koudelka et al., 1989. In vivo response of microfabricated glucose sensors to glycemia changes in normal rats. Biomed Biochim Acta 48(11-12):953-956.
Koudelka et al., 1991. In-vivo behaviour of hypodermically implanted microfabricated glucose sensors. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 6:31-36.
Kraver et al., 2001. A mixed-signal sensor interface microinstrument. Sensors and Actuators A 91:266-277.
Kruger et al., 2000. Psychological motivation and patient education: A role for continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):S93-S97.
Kulys et al., 1994. Carbon-paste biosensors array for long-term glucose measurement. Biosensors & Beioelectronics 9:491-500.
Kunzler et al., 1993. Hydrogels based on hydrophilic side chain siloxanes. Poly Mat Sci and Eng 69:226-227.
Kunzler et al., Aug. 21, 1995. Contact lens materials. Chemistry & Industry. 651-655.
Ladd et al., 1996. Structure Determination by X-ray Crystallography, 3rd ed. Plenum, 1996, Ch. 1, pp. xxi-xxiv and pp. 1-58.
Lee et al., 1999. Effects of pore size, void volume, and pore connectivity on tissue responses. Society for Biomaterials 25th Annual Meeting, p. 171.
Lehmann et al., May 1994. Retrospective validation of a physiological model of glucose-insulin interaction in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Med. Eng. Phys. 16:193-202.
Leprince et al., Jan. 2001. Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Membranes to Wrap Surfaces of Circulatory Support Devices in Patients Undergoing Bridge to Heart Transplantation. European J Cardiothoracic Surgery 19:302-306.
Lerner et al., 1984. An implantable electrochemical glucose sensor. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 428:263-278.
Lewandowski et al., 1988. Evaluation of a miniature blood glucose sensor. Transactions of the American Society of Artificial Internal Organs 34:255-258.
Leypoldt et al., 1984. Model of a two-substrate enzyme electrode for glucose. Analytical Chemistry 56:2896-2904.
Linke et al., 1994. Amperometric biosensor for in vivo glucose sensing based on glucose oxidase immobilized in a redox hydrogel. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 9:151-158.
Loebe et al., 1993. Use of Polytetrafluoroethylene Surgical Membrane as a Pericardial Substitute. PTFE Membrane in Correction of Congenital Heart Defects—Texas Heart Institute Journal 20(3):213-217.
Loffler et al., 1995. Separation and determination of traces of ammonia in air by means of chromatomembrane cells. Fresenius J Analytical Chemistry 352:613-614.
Lowe, 1984. Biosensors. Trends in Biotechnology 2(3):59-65.
Lyman D. 1960. Polyurethanes. I. The Solution Polymerization of Diisocyanates with Ethylene Glycol. J. Polymer Sci XLV:49-59.
Madaras et al., 1996. Microfabricated amperometric creatine and creatinine biosensors. Analytica Chimica Acta 319:335-345.
Maidan et al., 1992. Elimination of Electrooxidizable Interferent-Produced Currents in Amperometric Biosensors. Analytical Chemistry 64:2889-2896.
Makale et al., 2003. Tissue window chamber system for validation of implanted oxygen sensors. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 284:H2288-2294.
Malin et al., 1999. Noninvasive Prediction of Glucose by Near-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy. Clinical Chemistry 45(9):1651-1658.
Maran et al., 2002. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring in diabetic patients: A multicenter analysis. Diabetes Care 25(2):347-352.
March, W. F. 2002. Dealing with the delay. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 4(1):49-50.
Marena et al., 1993. The artificial endocrine pancreas in clinical practice and research. Panminerva Medica 35(2):67-74.
Mascini et al., 1989. Glucose electrochemical probe with extended linearity for whole blood. J Pharm Biomed Anal 7(12):1507-1512.
Mastrototaro et al., 1991. An electroenzymatic glucose sensor fabricated on a flexible substrate. Sensors and Actuators B 5:139-144.
Mastrototaro et al., 2003. Reproducibility of the continuous glucose monitoring system matches previous reports and the intended use of the product. Diabetes Care 26:256; author reply p. 257.
Mastrototaro, J. J. 2000. The MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):513-8.
Matsumoto et al., 1998. A micro-planar amperometeric glucose sensor unsusceptible to interference species. Sensors and Actuators B 49:68-72.
Matsumoto et al., 2001. A long-term lifetime amperometric glucose sensor with a perfluorocarbon polymer coating. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 16:271-276.
Matthews et al., 1988. An amperometric needle-type glucose sensor testing in rats and man. Diabetic Medicine 5:248-252.
McCartney et al., 2001. Near-infrared fluorescence lifetime assay for serum glucose based on allophycocyanin-labeled concanavalin A. Analytical Biochemistry 292:216-221.
McGrath et al., 1995. The use of differential measurements with a glucose biosensor for interference compensation during glucose determinations by flow injection analysis. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 10:937-943.
McKean, et al., Jul. 7, 1988. A Telemetry Instrumentation System for Chronically Implanted Glucose and Oxygen Sensors. Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 35:526-532.
Memoli et al., 2002. A comparison between different immobilised glucoseoxidase-based electrodes. J Pharm Biomed Anal 29:1045-1052.
Meyerhoff et al., 1992. On line continuous monitoring of subcutaneous tissue glucose in men by combining portable glucosensor with microdialysis. Diabetologia 35:1087-1092.
Miller et al., 1989. Generation of IL1-like activity in response to biomedical polymer implants: a comparison of in vitro and in vivo models. J Biomedical Materials Research 23:1007-1026.
Miller et al., 1989. In vitro stimulation of fibroblast activity by factors generated from human monocytes activated by biomedical polymers. J Biomedical Materials Research 23:911-930.
Miller, A. 1988. Human monocyte-macrophage activation and interleukin 1 generation by biomedical polymers. J Biomedical Materials Research 23:713-731.
Minale et al., Sep. 1988. Clinical Experience with Expanded Plytetrafluoroethylene Gore-Tex® Surgical Membrane for Pericardial Closure: A Study of 110 Cases. J Cardiac Surgery 3(3): 193-201.
Moatti-Sirat et al., 1992. Evaluating in vitro and in vivo the interference of ascorbate and acetaminophen on glucose detection by a needle-type glucose sensor. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 7:345-352.
Moatti-Sirat et al., 1992. Towards continuous glucose monitoring: in vivo evaluation of a miniaturized glucose sensor implanted for several days in rat subcutaneous tissue. Diabetologia 35:224-230.
Moatti-Sirat et al., Jun. 1994. Reduction of acetaminophen interference in glucose sensors by a composite Nafion membrane: demonstration in rats and man. Diabetologia 37(6):610-616.
Morff et al., 1990. Microfabrication of reproducible, economical, electroenzymatic glucose sensors. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 12(2):0483-0484.
Mosbach et al., 1975. Determination of heat changes in the proximity of immobilized enzymes with an enzyme termistor and its use for the assay of metabolites. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. (Enzymology) 403:256-265.
Motonaka et al., 1993. Determination of cholesterol and cholesterol ester with novel enzyme microsensors. Analytical Chemistry 65:3258-3261.
Moussy et al., 2000. Biomaterials community examines biosensor biocompatibility. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2:473-477.
Mowery et al., 2000. Preparation and characterization of hydrophobic polymeric films that are thromboresistant via nitric oxide release. Biomaterials 21: 9-21.
Murphy, et al., 1992. Polymer membranes in clinical sensor applications. II. The design and fabrication of permselective hydrogels for electrochemical devices. Biomaterials 13(14):979-990.
Muslu. 1991. Trickling filter performance. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 37:211-224.
Myler et al., 2002. Ultra-thin-polysiloxane-film-composite membranes for the optimisation of amperometric oxidase enzyme electrodes. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 17:35-43.
Nakayama et al., 1992. Surface fixation of hydrogels: heparin and glucose oxidase hydrogelated surfaces. ASAIO Journal 38:M421-M424.
Nam et al., 2000. A novel fabrication method of macroporous biodegradable polymer scaffolds using gas foaming salt as a porogen additive. J Biomedical Materials Research 53:1-7.
Ohara et al., 1994. “Wired” enzyme electrodes for amperometric determination of glucose or lactate in the presence of interfering substances. Analytical Chemistry 66:2451-2457.
Ohara, et al., Dec. 1993. Glucose electrodes based on cross-linked bis(2,2′-bipyridine)chloroosmium(+-2+) complexed poly(I-vinylimidazole) films. Analytical Chemistry 65:3512-3517.
Okuda et al., 1971. Mutarotase effect on micro determinations of D-glucose and its anomers with (3- D-glucose oxidase. Analytical Biochemistry 43:312-315.
Palmisano et al., 2000. Simultaneous monitoring of glucose and lactate by an interference and crosstalk free dual electrode amperometric biosensor based on electropolymerized thin films. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 15:531-539.
Panetti 2002. Differential effects of sphingosine 1-phosphate and lysophosphatidic acid on endothelial cells. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1582:190-196.
Patel et al., 2003. Amperometric glucose sensors based on ferrocene containing polymeric electron transfer systems—a preliminary report. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 18:1073-1076.
Pegoraro et al., 1995. Gas transport properties of siloxane polyurethanes. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 57:421-429.
Pfeiffer et al., 1992. On line continuous monitoring of subcutaneous tissue glucose is feasible by combining portable glucosensor with microdialysis. Horm. Metab. Res. 25:121-124.
Pfeiffer, E.F. 1990. The glucose sensor: the missing link in diabetes therapy. Horm Metab Res Suppl. 24:154-164.
Phillips and Smith. 1988. Biomedical Applications of Polyurethanes: Implications of Failure Mechanisms, J. Biomaterial Applciations 3:202-227.
Pichert et al., 2000. Issues for the coming age of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Educator 26(6):969-980.
Pickup et al. 1987-88. Implantable glucose sensors: choosing the appropriate sensing strategy. Biosensors 3:335-346 (1987-88).
Pickup et al., 1989. In vivo molecular sensing in diabetes mellitus: an implantable glucose sensor with direct electron transfer. Diabetologia 32:213-217.
Pickup et al., 1989. Potentially-implantable, amperometric glucose sensors with mediated electron transfer: improving the operating stability. Biosensors 4:109-119.
Pineda et al., 1996. Bone regeneration with resorbable polymeric membranes. III. Effect of poly(L- lactide) membrane pore size on the bone healing process in large defects. J. Biomedical Materials Research 31:385-394.
Pinner et al., Oct. 24, 1959. Cross-linking of cellulose acetate by ionizing radiation. Nature 184:1303-1304.
Pishko et al., 1991. Amperometric glucose microelectrodes prepared through immobilization of glucose oxidase in redox hydrogels. Analytical Chemistry 63:2268-2272.
Pitzer et al., 2001. Detection of hypoglycemia with the GlucoWatch biographer. Diabetes Care 24(5):881-885.
Poitout et al., 1991. In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation in Dogs of a Miniaturized Glucose Sensor. ASAIO Transactions 37:M298-M300.
Poitout et al., 1993. A glucose monitoring system for on line estimation in man of blood glucose concentration using a miniaturized glucose sensor implanted in the subcutaneous tissue and a wearable control unit. Diabetologia 36:658-663.
Poitout et al., 1994. Development of a glucose sensor for glucose monitoring in man: the disposable implant concept. Clinical Materials 15:241-246.
Postlethwaite et al., 1996. Interdigitated array electrode as an alternative to the rotated ring-disk electrode for determination of the reaction products of dioxygen reduction. Analytical Chemistry 68:2951-2958.
Prabhu et al., 1981. Electrochemical studies of hydrogen peroxide at a platinum disc electrode. Electrochimica Acta 26(6):725-729.
PRECLUDE® Pericardial Membrane Brochure, Nov. 2001, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ 86004.
Quinn et al., 1995. Kinetics of glucose delivery to subcutaneous tissue in rats measured with 0.3-mm amperometric microsensors. The American Physiological Society E155-E161.
Quinn et al., 1997. Biocompatible, glucose-permeable hydrogel for in situ coating of implantable biosensors. Biomaterials 18:1665-1670.
Rabah et al., 1991. Electrochemical wear of graphite anodes during electrolysis of brine. Carbon 29(2):165-171.
Ratner, B,D. 2002. Reducing capsular thickness and enhancing angiogenesis around implant drug release systems. J Controlled Release 78:211-218.
Reach et al., 1986. A Method for Evaluating in vivo the Functional Characteristics of Glucose Sensors. Biosensors 2:211-220.
Reach et al., 1992. Can continuous glucose monitoring be used for the treatment of diabetes? Analytical Chemistry 64(5):381-386.
Reach, Gerard. 2000-2001. Letters to the Editor Re: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2:49-56 (2000); Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 3(1): 129-130 (2001).
Rebrin et al., 1989. Automated feedback control of subcutaneous glucose concentration in diabetic dogs, Diabetologia 32:573-576.
Rebrin et al., 1992. Subcutaneous glucose monitoring by means of electrochemical sensors: fiction or reality? J. Biomed. Eng. 14:33-40.
Revuelta et al., Mar. 1985. Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene Surgical Membrane for Pericardial Closure. J Thorac Cardiovascular Surgery 89(3):451-455.
Rhodes et al., 1994. Prediction of pocket-portable and implantable glucose enzyme electrode performance from combined species permeability and digital simulation analysis. Analytical Chemistry 66(9):1520-1529.
Rivers et al., 2001. Central venous oxygen saturation monitoring in the critically ill patient. Current Opinion in Critical Care 7:204-211.
Sakakida et al., 1992. Development of Ferrocene-Mediated Needle-Type Glucose Sensor as a Measure of True Subcutaneous Tissue Glucose Concentrations. Artificial Organs Today 2(2):145-158.
Sakakida et al., 1993. Ferrocene-Mediated Needle Type Glucose Sensor Covered with Newly Designed Biocompatible Membrane. Sensors and Actuators B 13-14:319-322.
Sansen et al., 1985. Glucose sensor with telemetry system. In Ko, W. H. (Ed.). Implantable Sensors for Closed Loop Prosthetic Systems. Chap. 12, pp. 167-175, Mount Kisco, NY: Futura Publishing Co.
Sansen et al., 1990. A smart sensor for the voltammetric measurement of oxygen or glucose concentrations. Sensors and Actuators B 1:298-302.
Schmidt et al., 1993. Glucose concentration in subcutaneous extracellular space. Diabetes Care 16(5):695-700.
Schmidtke et al., Jan. 1998. Measurement and modeling of the transient difference between blood and subcutaneous glucose concentrations in the rat after injection of insulin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:294-299.
Schoemaker et al., 2003. The SCGM1 system: Subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring based on microdialysis technique. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 5(4):599-608.
Schoonen et al., 1990. Development of a potentially wearable glucose sensor for patients with diabetes mellitus: design and in-vitro evaluation. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 5:37-46.
Schuler et al., 1999. Modified gas-permeable silicone rubber membranes for covalent immobilisation of enzymes and their use in biosensor development. Analyst 124:1181-1184.
Selam, J. L. 1997. Management of diabetes with glucose sensors and implantable insulin pumps. From the dream of the 60s to the realities of the 90s. ASAIO Journal 43:137-142.
Service et al., 1970. Mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, a measure of diabetic instability. Diabetes 19: 644-655.
Service, R. F. 2002. Can sensors make a home in the body? Science 297:962-3.
Sharkawy et al., 1996. Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. I. Diffusion properties. J Biomedical Materials Research 37:401-412.
Shaw et al., 1991. In vitro testing of a simply constructed, highly stable glucose sensor suitable for implantation in diabetic patients. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 6:401-406.
Shichiri et al., 1982. Wearable artificial endocrine pancreas with needle-type glucose sensor. Lancet 2:1129-1131.
Shichiri et al., 1983. Glycaemic Control in Pancreatectomized Dogs with a Wearable Artificial Endocrine Pancreas. Diabetologia 24:179-184.
Shichiri et al., 1985. Needle-type Glucose Sensor for Wearable Artificial Endocrine Pancreas, in Implantable Sensors for Closed-Loop Prosthetic Systems, Ed. Ko, Future Publishing Co., Mt. Kisko, NY, pp. 197-210.
Shichiri et al., 1986. Telemetry Glucose Monitoring Device with Needle-Type Glucose Sensor: A Useful Tool for Blood Glucose Monitoring in Diabetic Individuals. Diabetes Care 9(3):298-301.
Shichiri et al., 1989. Membrane Design for Extending the Long-Life of an Implantable Glucose Sensor, Diab. Nutr. Metab. 2:309-313.
Shults et al., 1994. A telemetry-instrumentation system for monitoring multiple subcutaneously implanted glucose sensors. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 41(10):937-942.
Sieminski et al., 2000. Biomaterial-microvasculature interactions. Biomaterials 21:2233-2241.
Skyler, J. S. 2000. The economic burden of diabetes and the benefits of improved glycemic control: the potential role of a continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):S7-S12.
Sokol et al., 1980. Immobilized-enzyme rate-determination method for glucose analysis. Clinical Chemistry 26(1):89-92.
Sriyudthsak et al., 1996. Enzyme-epoxy membrane based glucose analyzing system and medical applications. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 11:735-742.
Steil et al,, 2003. Determination of plasma glucose during rapid glucose excursions with a subcutaneous glucose sensor. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 5(1 ):27-31.
Stern et al., 1957. Electrochemical polarization: 1. Atheoretical analysis of the shape of polarization curves. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 104(1):56-63.
Sternberg et al., 1988. Covalent enzyme coupling on cellulose acetate membranes for glucose sensor development. Analytical Chemistry 69:2781-2786.
Sternberg et al., 1988. Study and Development of Multilayer Needle-type Enzyme-based Glucose Microsensors. Biosensors 4:27-40.
Stokes. 1988. Polyether Polyurethanes: Biostable or Not? J. Biomaterial Applications 3:228-259.
Sumino T. et al., 1998. Preliminary study of continuous glucose monitoring with a microdialysis technique. Proceedings of the IEEE 20(4): 1775-1778.
Takegami et al., 1992. Pervaporation of ethanol water mixtures using novel hydrophobic membranes containing polydimethylsiloxane. Journal of Membrane Science 75:93-105.
Tanenberg et al., 2000. Continuous glucose monitoring system: A new approach to the diagnosis of diabetic gastroparesis. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2(Suppl 1):S73-S80.
Tang et al., 1993. Fibrin(ogen) mediates acute inflammatory responses to biomaterials. J Exp Med 178:2147-2156.
Tang et al., 1995 . Inflammatory responses to biomaterials. American J Clinical Pathology 103:466-471.
Tang et al., 1996. Molecular determinants of acute inflammatory responses to biomaterials. J Clinical lnvestigation97:1329-1334.
Tang et al., 1998. Mast cells mediate acute inflammatory responses to implanted biomaterials. Proc Nati Acad Sci USA 95:8841-8846.
Tatsuma et al., 1991. Oxidase-peroxidase bilayer-modified electrodes as sensors for lactate, pyruvate, cholesterol and uric acid. Analytica Chimica Acta 242:85-89.
Thome et al., 1995. Can the decrease in subcutaneous glucose concentration precede the decrease in blood glucose level? Proposition for a push-pull kinetics hypothesis. Horm. Metab. Res. 27:53 (Abstract).
Thome-Duret et al., 1996. Modification of the sensitivity of glucose sensor implanted into subcutaneous tissue. Diabetes Metabolism 22:174-178.
Thome-Duret et al., 1996. Use of a subcutaneous glucose sensor to detect decreases in glucose concentration prior to observation in blood. Analytical Chemistry 68:3822-3826.
Thome-Duret et al., 1998. Continuous glucose monitoring in the free-moving rat. Metabolism 47:799-803.
Thompson et al., 1986. In Vivo Probes: Problems and Perspectives. Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Canada, pp. 255-261.
Tibell et aL, 2001. Survival of macroencapsulated allogeneic parathyroid tissue one year after transplantation in nonimmunosuppressed humans. Cell Transplant 10:591-9.
Tierney et al., 2000. Effect of acetaminophen on the accuracy of glucose measurements obtained with the GlucoWatch biographer. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2:199-207.
Tierney et al., 2000. The GlucoWatch® biographer: A frequent, automatic and noninvasive glucose monitor. Ann. Med. 32:632-641.
Trecroci, D. 2002. A Glimpse into the Future-Continuous Monitoring of Glucose with a Microfiber. Diabetes Interview Jul. 2002, pp. 42-43.
Tse and Gough. 1987. Time-Dependent Inactivation of Immobilized Glucose Oxidase and Catalase. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 29:705-713.
Turner and Pickup, 1985. Diabetes mellitus: biosensors for research and management. Biosensors 1:85-115.
Turner et al., 1984, Carbon Monoxide: Acceptor Oxidoreductase from Pseudomonas Thermocarboxydovorans Strain C2 and its use in a Carbon Monoxide Sensor. Analytica Chimica Acta 163: 161-174.
Turner, A.P.F. 1988. Amperometric biosensor based on mediator-modified electrodes. Methods in Enzymology 137:90-103.
Updike et al,, 1967. The enzyme electrode. Nature 214:986-988.
Updike et al., 1982. Implanting the glucose enzyme electrode: Problems, progress, and alternative solutions. Diabetes Care 5(3):207-212.
Updike et al., 1988. Laboratory Evaluation of New Reusable Blood Glucose Sensor. Diabetes Care 11:801-807.
Updike et al., 1994. E nzymatic glucose sensor: Improved long-term performance in vitro and in vivo. ASAIO Journal 40(2):157-163.
Updike et al., 1997. Principles of long-term fully implanted sensors with emphasis on radiotelemetric monitoring of blood glucose form inside a subcutaneous foreign body capsule (FBC). In Fraser, ed., Biosensors in the Body. New York. John Wiley & Sons, Chapter 4, pp. 117-137.
Updike et al., 2000. A subcutaneous glucose sensor with improved longevity, dynamic range, and stability of calibration. Diabetes Care 23(2):208-214.
Vadgama, P. Nov. 1981. Enzyme electrodes as practical biosensors. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology 5(6):293-298.
Vadgama. 1988. Diffusion limited enzyme electrodes. NATO ASI Series: Series C, Math and Phys. Sci. 226:359-377.
Velho et al., 1989. In vitro and in vivo stability of electrode potentials in needle-type glucose sensors. Influence of needle material. Diabetes 38:164-171.
Velho et al., 1989. Strategies for calibrating a subcutaneous glucose sensor. Biomed Biochim Acta 48(11-12): 957-964.
Von Woedtke et al., 1989. In situ calibration of implanted electrochemical glucose sensors. Biomed Biochim. Acta 48(11-12):943-952.
Wade Jr., L.G. Organic Chemistry, Chapter 17, Reactions of Aromatic Compounds pp. 762-763, 1987.
Wagner et al., 1998. Continuous amperometric monitoring of glucose in a brittle diabetic chimpanzee with a miniature subcutaneous electrode. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. A 95:6379-6382.
Wang et al., 1994. Highly Selective Membrane-Free, Mediator-Free Glucose Biosensor, Analytical Chemistry 66:3600-3603.
Wang et al., 1997. Improved ruggedness for membrane-based amperometric sensors using a pulsed amperometric method. Analytical Chemistry 69:4482-4489.
Ward et al., 2000. Rise in background current overtime in a subcutaneous glucose sensor in the rabbit: Relevance to calibration and accuracy. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 15:53-61.
Ward et al., 2000. Understanding Spontaneous Output Fluctuations of an Amperometric Glucose Sensor: Effect of Inhalation Anesthesia and e of a Nonenzyme Containing Electrode, ASAIO Journal 46:540-546.
Ward et al., 2002. A new amperometric glucose microsensor: In vitro and short-term in vivo evaluation. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 17:181-189.
Wientjes, K. J. C. 2000. Development of a glucose sensor for diabetic patients (Ph.D. Thesis).
Wilkins et al., 1988. The coated wire electrode glucose sensor. Horm Metab Res Suppl, 20:50-55.
Wilkins et al., 1995. Glucose monitoring: state of the art and future possibilities. Med Eng Phys 18:273-288.
Wilkins et al., 1995. Integrated implantable device for long-term glucose monitoring. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 10:485-494.
Wilson et al., 1992. Progress toward the development of an implantable sensor for glucose. Clinical Chemistry 38(9):1613-1617.
Wilson et al., 2000. Enzyme-based biosensors for in vivo measurements. Chem. Rev. 100:2693 2704.
Wood, W. et al., Mar. 1990. Hermetic Sealing with Epoxy. Mechanical Engineering (3 pages).
Woodward. 1982. How Fibroblasts and Giant Cells Encapsulate Implants: Considerations in Design of Glucose Sensor. Diabetes Care 5:278-281.
Wright et al., 1999. Bioelectrochemical dehalogenations via direct electrochemistry of poly(ethylene oxide)-modified myoglobin. Electrochemistry Communications 1: 603-611.
Wu et al., 1999, in situ electrochemical oxygen generation with an immunoisolation device. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 105-125.
Yang et al., 1996, A glucose biosensor based on an oxygen electrode: In-vitro performances in a model buffer solution and in blood plasma. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology 30:55-61.
Yang et al., 1998. Development of needle-type glucose sensor with high selectivity. Sensors and Actuators B 46:249-256.
Ye et al., 1993. High Current Density ‘Wired’ Quinoprotein Glucose Dehydrogenase Electrode. Analytical Chemistry 65:238-241.
Zamzow et al., 1990. Development and evaluation of a wearable blood glucose monitor. ASAIO Transactions 36(3):M588-M591.
Zhang et al., 1993. Electrochemical oxidation of H202 on Pt and Pt +Ir electrodes in physiological buffer and its applicability to H202-based biosensors. J. Electroanalytical Chemistry 345:253-271.
Zhang et al., 1993. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of oxygen effects on a glucose oxidase based implantable glucose sensor. Analytica Chimica Acta 281:513-520.
Zhang et al., 1994. Elimination of the acetaminophen interference in an implantable glucose sensor. Analytical Chemistry 66(7):1183-1188.
Zhu et al., 1994. Fabrication and characterization of glucose sensors based on a microarray H202 electrode. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 9: 295-300.
EP App. No. 02747094.7, filed Jul. 26, 2002: Office Action dated Nov. 19, 2004.
JP App. No. 2003-516584, filed Jul. 26, 2002 [Appeal No. 084163]: Appeal Decision dated Sep. 1, 2009.
PCT/US2002/023902, filed Jul. 26, 2002: International Preliminary Examination Report.
PCT/US2002/023902, filed Jul. 26, 2002: International Search Report.
U.S. Appl. No. 08/811,473: Office Action dated Dec. 7, 1998.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Apr. 4, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Aug. 1, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Aug. 15, 2001.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Dec. 11, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jan. 16, 2003.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jan. 17, 2002.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jan. 23, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jul. 15, 2002.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jul. 17, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2003.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Mar. 9, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated May 26, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2003.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/447,227: Office Action dated Sep. 22, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/489,588: Office Action dated Aug. 14, 2001.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/489,588: Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2002.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/489,588: Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2003.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,386: Office Action dated Apr. 9, 2003.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,858: Office Action dated Mar. 22 , 2004.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,858: Office Action dated Sep. 21, 2004.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/646,333: Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/646,333: Office Action dated Jun. 6, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/646,333: Office Action dated Sep. 22, 2004.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/647,065: Office Action dated Oct. 16, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/657,843: Office Action dated Sep. 21, 2004.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/838,909: Office Action dated Jun. 5, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/838,909: Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/838,912: Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/838,912: Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/838,912: Office Action dated Sep. 21, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/846,150: Office Action dated Dec. 9, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/846,150: Office Action dated Jun. 5, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No, 10/846,150: Office Action dated Jun. 9, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,269: Office Action dated Aug. 14, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,269: Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,269: Office Action dated May 4, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,269: Office Action dated Nov. 2, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/055,779: Office Action dated May 23, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/055,779: Office Action dated Oct. 24, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/439,630: Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/439,630: Office Action dated Sep. 18, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,367: Office Action dated Dec. 1, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/037,812: Office Action dated Apr. 1.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/037,812: Office Action dated Jul. 24, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/037,812: Office Action dated Sep. 29, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/037,830: Office Action dated Feb. 26, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/037,830: Office Action dated Sep. 29, 2008.
Reexamination U.S. Appl. No. 90/011,067: Electronic File History through Jan. 3, 2010, including Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2010 and Applicant Response filed Dec. 29, 2010.
Reexamination U.S. Appl. No. 90/011,080: Electronic File History through Jan. 3, 2010, including Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2010 and Applicant Response filed Dec. 29, 2010.
Alberts et al., 1994. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd Ed., p. G-19.
Dobson et al., Apr. 1990. 1-Butyrul-glycerol: A novel angioge3nesis factor secreted by differentiating adipocytes. Cell 61(2):223-230.
English et al., Feb. 2001. Platelet-released phospholipids link haemostasis and angiogenesis. Cardiovascular Research 49:588-599.
Halvorsen et al., Dec. 1993. Vasodilation of rat retinal microvessels induced by monobutyrin. J. Clinical Investigation 92(6):2872-2876.
Kidd et al., Nov. 2001: Angiogenesis and neovascular associated with extracellular matrix-modified porous implants. J. Biomedical Materials Research 59(2):366-377.
Kugler et al., Aug. 1990. A new steroid-eluting epicardial lead: Experience with atrial and ventricular implantation in the immature swine. PACE 13:976-981.
Mathivanar et al., Dec. 1990. In vivo elution rate of drug eluting ceramic leads with a reduced dose of dexamethasone sodium phosphate. PACE 13(II):1883-1886.
Mond et al., Jan. 1992. The electrode-tissue interface: the revolutionary role of steroid elution. PACE 15:95-107.
Radovsky et al., Jan. 1989. Effects of dexamethasone elution on tissue reaction around stimulating electrodes of endocardial pacing leads in dogs. Am. Heart J. 117:1288-1297.
Ward et al., 1999. Assessment of chronically implanted subcutaneous glucose sensors in dogs: the effect of surrounding fluid masses. ASAIO Journal 45:555-561.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20150157248 A1 Jun 2015 US
Continuations (4)
Number Date Country
Parent 14341468 Jul 2014 US
Child 14619651 US
Parent 12633578 Dec 2009 US
Child 14341468 US
Parent 10768889 Jan 2004 US
Child 12633578 US
Parent 09916386 Jul 2001 US
Child 10768889 US