Literature DB >> 24837271

Assessment of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medical device recalls.

John C Somberg1, Pauline McEwen2, Janos Molnar3.   

Abstract

Medical device recalls have called attention to the device approval process in the United States. The premarket approval (PMA) process requires clinical trials to evaluate safety and effectiveness, whereas the expedited 510(k) process does not. The 510(k) process has been considered a source of increased recalls. This study aimed to assess the relative safety of medical device approval pathways based on the numbers of approvals and recalls. Data on recalls in the United States from January 2005 to December 2012 were collected from the Food and Drug Administration Web site. Over 8 years, 30,002 devices were approved, 5,728 by PMA (19%) and 24,274 (81%) by 510(k). There were 249 recalls due to serious risks, 0.45% of PMA approvals, and 0.92% of 510(k)-cleared devices, p <0.001. Over 1/2 of the recalls were during the first 2 years on the market. Percentage of recalled PMA devices was unchanged over the 8 years, whereas 510(k) recalls increased in 2010 to 2012 (from 0.65% to 1.39%, p <0.001). Cardiovascular devices represent the largest class of recalls (27%). The proportions of recalled PMA and 510(k) cardiovascular devices were the same as for all medical devices until 2011, but 510(k) recalls dramatically decreased in 2012 to the lowest recall rate seen (0.73%). In conclusion, recall rates were the same for 510(k)- and PMA-approved devices in 2005 to 2009 and increased for 510(k) devices subsequently. Modifying the 510(k) process with more rigorous performance testing, a conditional 2-year approval and a mandatory registry may be an approach to reduce recalls.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24837271     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.03.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.

Authors:  Michael J Connor; Kathryn Tringale; Vitali Moiseenko; Deborah C Marshall; Kevin Moore; Laura Cervino; Todd Atwood; Derek Brown; Arno J Mundt; Todd Pawlicki; Abram Recht; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2017-02-12       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017.

Authors:  Jonathan R Dubin; Stephen D Simon; Kirsten Norrell; Jacob Perera; Jacob Gowen; Akin Cil
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-05-03

3.  Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices.

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Ariel Ducey; Pascale Lehoux; Thomas Turgeon; Sue Ross; Patricia Trbovich; Anthony Easty; Chaim Bell; David Urbach
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 7.035

4.  Drugs and Devices: Comparison of European and U.S. Approval Processes.

Authors:  Gail A Van Norman
Journal:  JACC Basic Transl Sci       Date:  2016-08-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.