Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices in the US: Implications for Clinical Cardiology

被引:0
作者
Benjamin N. Rome
Daniel B. Kramer
Aaron S. Kesselheim
机构
[1] Brigham and Women’s Hospital,Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine
[2] Harvard Medical School,undefined
[3] Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,undefined
[4] Hebrew SeniorLife Institute for Aging Research,undefined
来源
Current Cardiology Reports | 2014年 / 16卷
关键词
Medical devices; Premarket approval; US Food and Drug Administration; Implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Patient safety; High risk; Clinical cardiology;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Since 1976, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used the premarket approval (PMA) process to approve high-risk medical devices, including implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), coronary stents, and artificial heart valves. The PMA process is widely viewed as a rigorous evaluation of device safety and effectiveness, though recent recalls—most notably related to underperforming ICD leads—have raised concerns about whether physicians and patients should sometimes be more wary about devices approved via this pathway. The FDA must utilize a “least burdensome” approach to approve new medical devices, and many widely used device models have been approved as supplements to existing PMA-approved devices with limited clinical testing. A recent Supreme Court ruling has made it difficult for patients harmed by unsafe PMA-approved devices to seek damages in court. Cardiologists who utilize high-risk medical devices should be aware that FDA approval of new devices relies on variable levels of evidence and does not necessarily indicate improved effectiveness over existing models. Clinician and patient engagement in postmarket surveillance and comparative effectiveness research remains imperative.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 58 条
  • [1] Kurtz SM(2010)Implantation trends and patient profiles for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the United States: 1993-2006 Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 33 705-711
  • [2] Ochoa JA(2012)a, Frisch DR, Ho RT, et al. Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures J Am Coll Cardiol 60 1540-1545
  • [3] Lau E(2012)Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union N Engl J Med 366 848-855
  • [4] Shkolnikov Y(2009)Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices JAMA 302 2679-2685
  • [5] Pavri BB(2012)Inclusion of comparative effectiveness data in high-risk cardiovascular device studies at the time of premarket approval JAMA 308 1740-1742
  • [6] Frisch D(2010)Premarket clinical evaluation of novel cardiovascular devices: quality analysis of premarket clinical studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration 2000-2007 Am J Ther 17 2-7
  • [7] Greenspon AJ(2008)Learning from our mistakes? Testing new ICD technology N Engl J Med 359 2517-2519
  • [8] Patel JD(2008)Semper fidelis–consumer protection for patients with implanted medical devices N Engl J Med 358 985-987
  • [9] Lau E(2011)Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process Arch Intern Med 171 1006-1011
  • [10] Ochoa J(2008)A pivotal medical-device case N Engl J Med 358 76-77