Trial Registration for Public Trust: Making the Case for Medical Devices

Recently, several pharmaceutical companies have been shown to have withheld negative clinical trial results from the public. These incidents have resulted in a concerted global effort to register all trials at inception, so that all subsequent results can be tracked regardless of whether they are positive or negative. These trial registration policies have been driven in large part by concern about the pharmaceutical sector. The medical device industry is much smaller, and different from the pharmaceutical industry in some fundamental ways. This paper examines the issues surrounding registration of device trials and argues that these differences with pharmaceutical should not exempt device trials from registration

Who is Responsible for Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Medical Devices? The Role of Independent Technology Assessment

IntroductionThe global medical technology industry brings thousands of devices to market every year. However, significant gaps persist in the scientific literature, in the medical device approval process, and in the realm of postmarketing surveillance. Although thousands of drugs obtain approval only after review in randomized controlled trials, relatively few new medical devices are subject to comparable scrutiny.ObjectiveTo improve health outcomes, we must enhance our scrutiny of medical devices, and, without simply deferring to the Food and Drug Administration, we must ask ourselves: Who is responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices?ConclusionsTechnology assessments by independent organizations are a part of the solution to this challenge and may motivate further research focused on patient outcomes

Optimizing fluid management in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF): the emerging role of combined measurement of body hydration status and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels

The study tests the hypothesis that in patients admitted with acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF), achievement of adequate body hydration status with intensive medical therapy, modulated by combined bioelectrical vectorial impedance analysis (BIVA) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) measurement, may contribute to optimize the timing of patient’s discharge and to improve clinical outcomes. Three hundred patients admitted for ADHF underwent serial BIVA and BNP measurement. Therapy was titrated to reach a BNP value of <250 pg/ml, whenever possible. Patients were categorized as early responders (rapid BNP fall below 250 pg/ml); late responders (slow BNP fall below 250 pg/ml, after aggressive therapy); and non-responders (BNP persistently >250 pg/ml). Worsening of renal function (WRF) was evaluated during hospitalization. Death and rehospitalization were monitored with a 6-month follow-up. BNP value on discharge of ≤250 pg/ml led to a 25% event rate within 6 months (Group A: 17.4%; Group B: 21%, Chi2; n.s.), whereas a value >250 pg/ml (Group C) was associated with a far higher percentage (37%). At discharge, body hydration was 73.8 ± 3.2% in the total population and 73.2 ± 2.1, 73.5 ± 2.8, 74.1 ± 3.6% in the three groups, respectively. WRF was observed in 22.3% of the total. WRF occurred in 22% in Group A, 32% in Group B, and 20% in Group C (P = n.s.). Our study confirms the hypothesis that combined BNP/BIVA sequential measurements help to achieve adequate fluid balance status in patients with ADHF and can be used to drive a “tailored therapy,” allowing clinicians to identify high-risk patients and possibly to reduce the incidence of complications secondary to fluid management strategies

Remote monitoring and follow-up of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in the Netherlands: An expert consensus report of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology

Remote monitoring of cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIED: pacemaker, cardiac resynchronisation therapy device and implantable cardioverter defibrillator) has been developed for technical control and follow-up using transtelephonic data transmission. In addition, automatic or patient-triggered alerts are sent to the cardiologist or allied professional who can respond if necessary with various interventions. The advantage of remote monitoring appears obvious in impending CIED failures and suspected symptoms but is less likely in routine follow-up of CIED. For this follow-up the indications, quality of care, cost-effectiveneness and patient satisfaction have to be determined before remote CIED monitoring can be applied in daily practice. Nevertheless remote CIED monitoring is expanding rapidly in the Netherlands without professional agreements about methodology, responsibilities of all the parties involved and that of the device patient, and reimbursement. The purpose of this consensus document on remote CIED monitoring and follow-up is to lay the base for a nationwide, uniform implementation in the Netherlands. This report describes the technical communication, current indications, benefits and limitations of remote CIED monitoring and follow-up, the role of the patient and device manufacturer, and costs and reimbursement. The view of cardiology experts and of other disciplines in conjunction with literature was incorporated in a preliminary series of recommendations. In addition, an overview of the questions related to remote CIED monitoring that need to be answered is given. This consensus document can be used for future guidelines for the Dutch profession

Left to Their Own Devices: Breakdowns in United States Medical Device Premarket Review

Using examples from recent FDA regulatory proceedings, Jonas Hines and colleagues critique the medical device premarket review and identify eight weaknesses in the process that should be remedied

Syncope: experience at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan

Introduction:Our aim was to determine the characteristics of Patients presenting with syncope at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.Methods: A review of medical records was conducted retrospectively at the Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. Patients aged 16 and above, admitted from January 2000 to December 2005 with the diagnosis of syncope made by the attending physician were included.Results:A total of 269 Patients were included (75% males, mean age: 57.4 years). Neurogenic (vasovagal) syncope was the most common cause (47%), followed by cardiogenic syncope (18%) and orthostatic syncope (9%). A total of 24% were discharged undiagnosed. Twenty Patients (7.4%) did not have any prodrome. Common prodromal symptoms included dizziness (61%), sweating (25%), palpitations (19%), nausea/vomiting (19%) and visual symptoms (17%). The distribution of symptoms according to cause of syncope revealed only breathlessness to be significantly associated with cardiogenic syncope (p = 0.002). Most Patients with cardiogenic syncope were aged above 40 (98%, p \u3c 0.001), had coronary artery disease (72%, p \u3c 0.001) and abnormal electrocardiogram at presentation (92%, p \u3c 0.001).Conclusion:Despite differences in burden of diseases, our findings were similar to those of published syncope literature. Further studies are needed to develop a protocol to expedite the evaluation and limit the work-up and admission in low-risk Patients

Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study design was a methodological systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The data sources were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All reports of randomized controlled trials assessing stent treatment for coronary disease published between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2008 were selected.</p> <p>A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. Major cardiac adverse events (death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 107 reports (81%). However, 19% of the articles contained no data on cardiac events. The mode of data collection of adverse events was given in 29 reports (22%) and a definition of expected adverse events was provided in 47 (36%). The length of follow-up was reported in 95 reports (72%). Assessment of adverse events by an adjudication committee was described in 46 reports (35%), and adverse events were described as being followed up for 6 months in 24% of reports (n = 32), between 7 to 12 months in 42% (n = 55) and for more than 1 year in 4% (n = 5). In 115 reports (87%), numerical data on the nature of the adverse events were reported per treatment arm. Procedural complications were described in 30 articles (23%). The causality of adverse events was reported in only 4 articles.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Several harm-related data were not adequately accounted for in articles of randomized controlled trials assessing stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Trials Registration</p> <p>Trials manuscript: 5534201182098351 (T80802P)</p