Literature DB >> 24760423

Approval of high-risk medical devices in the US: implications for clinical cardiology.

Benjamin N Rome1, Daniel B Kramer, Aaron S Kesselheim.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24760423      PMCID: PMC4080312          DOI: 10.1007/s11886-014-0489-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3782            Impact factor:   2.931


  24 in total

1.  The role of litigation in defining drug risks.

Authors:  Aaron S Kesselheim; Jerry Avorn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Semper fidelis--consumer protection for patients with implanted medical devices.

Authors:  William H Maisel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  A pivotal medical-device case.

Authors:  Gregory D Curfman; Stephen Morrissey; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.: revisiting pre-emption for medical devices.

Authors:  Bruce Patsner
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  Learning from our mistakes? Testing new ICD technology.

Authors:  Robert G Hauser; Adrian K Almquist
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009.

Authors:  Gregory D Curfman; Stephen Morrissey; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Life after Riegel: a fresh look at medical device preemption one year after Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

Authors:  Gregory J Wartman
Journal:  Food Drug Law J       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 0.619

8.  FDA approval of cardiac implantable electronic devices via original and supplement premarket approval pathways, 1979-2012.

Authors:  Benjamin N Rome; Daniel B Kramer; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Postmarket surveillance of medical devices: current capabilities and future opportunities.

Authors:  Kathleen Blake
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 1.900

10.  Variation among hospitals in selection of higher-cost, "higher-tech," implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillator (ICD) Registry.

Authors:  Rachel Lampert; Yongfei Wang; Jeptha P Curtis
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 4.749

View more
  7 in total

1.  How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval?

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Vinay K Rathi; Jonathan N Grauer; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Overview of High-Risk Medical Device Innovation in Gastroenterology from 2000 to 2014: Enhancing the Pipeline.

Authors:  Nasir Saleem; Shuai Xu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  The Role of the FDA and Regulatory Approval of New Devices for Diabetes Care.

Authors:  Shelley A Jazowski; Aaron N Winn
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.810

4.  Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead reliability: implications for postmarket surveillance.

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Laura A Hatfield; Deepa McGriff; Christopher R Ellis; Melanie T Gura; Michelle Samuel; Linda Kallinen Retel; Robert G Hauser
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 5.  Development of New Endovascular Devices for Aneurysm Treatment.

Authors:  Zhen Yu Jia; Hai Bin Shi; Shigeru Miyachi; Sun Moon Hwang; Jae Jon Sheen; Yun Sun Song; Joong Goo Kim; Deok Hee Lee; Dae Chul Suh
Journal:  J Stroke       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 6.967

6.  Medical Device Development Process, and Associated Risks and Legislative Aspects-Systematic Review.

Authors:  Petra Marešová; Blanka Klímová; Jan Honegr; Kamil Kuča; Wan Nur Hidayah Ibrahim; Ali Selamat
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-07-30

7.  Systematic review of the introduction, early phase study and evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul Welford; Natalie S Blencowe; Emily Pardington; Conor S Jones; Jane M Blazeby; Barry G Main
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 3.752

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.