Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biomaterials. 2007 Apr 19;28(25):3687–3703. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.034

Table 2.

Comparison of in vitro and in vivo performance of glucose oxidase based glucose sensors using different test species and different in vivo testing periods.

Species Implantation Site Sensitivity (nA/mmol per litre) Background Current (nA) Response Time
In Vitro In Vivo In Vitro In Vivo In Vitro In Vivo
Rats after 3 days[66] Interscapular subcutaneous tissue 1.7 ± 0.2 0.5 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.4 5.8 ± 1.4 190 ± 0.4 s (T90%)* < 300 s
Dogs after 36 hours [41] Neck subcutaneous tissue 1.7 ± 0.7 1.6 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.4 1.3 ± 0.5 < 300 s (T95%)† Not provided
Humans after 7 hours [43] Abdominal subcutaneous tissue 0.7 ± 0.3 0.2 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.1 24 s (T90%)* Not provided
Dogs after 10 days [74] Interscapular subcutaneous tissue ~ 6 ~ 3 Not provided Not provided Not provided Not Provided
Humans after 2 hours [44] Abdominal subcutaneous tissue 0.4 ±0.1 0.1 ± 0.02 0.4 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.3 290 ± 110 s 580 ± 290 s
*

T90% refers to the time required to reach 90% of the in vitro steady-state response after a step change in bulk glucose concentration

†

T95% refers to the time required to reach 95% of the in vitro steady-state response after a step change in bulk glucose concentration