Postmarket surveillance of high-risk medical devices needs transparent, comprehensive and independent registries

Clinical investigations to evaluate high-risk orthopaedic devices: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature

Purpose

The objective of this systematic review was to give an overview of clinical investigations regarding hip and knee arthroplasty implants published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals before entry into force of the EU Medical Device Regulation in May 2021.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the medical literature for a random selection of hip and knee implants to identify all peer-reviewed clinical investigations published within 10 years before and up to 20 years after regulatory approval. We report study characteristics, methodologies, outcomes, measures to prevent bias, and timing of clinical investigations of 30 current implants. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

We identified 2912 publications and finally included 151 papers published between 1995 and 2021 (63 on hip stems, 34 on hip cups, and 54 on knee systems). We identified no clinical studies published before Conformité Européene (CE)-marking for any selected device, and no studies even up to 20 years after CE-marking in one-quarter of devices. There were very few randomized controlled trials, and registry-based studies generally had larger sample sizes and better methodology.

Conclusion

The peer-reviewed literature alone is insufficient as a source of clinical investigations of these high-risk devices intended for life-long use. A more systematic, efficient, and faster way to evaluate safety and performance is necessary. Using a phased introduction approach, nesting comparative studies of observational and experimental design in existing registries, increasing the use of benefit measures, and accelerating surrogate outcomes research will help to minimize risks and maximize benefits.

National spine surgery registries' characteristics and aims: globally accepted standards have yet to be met. Results of a scoping review and a complementary survey

BACKGROUND

Surgery involving implantable devices is widely used to solve several health issues. National registries are essential tools for implantable device surveillance and vigilance. In 2017, the European Union encouraged Member States to establish "registries and databanks for specific types of devices" to evaluate device safety and performance and ensure their traceability. Spine-implantable devices significantly impact patient safety and public health; spine registries might help improve surgical outcomes. This study aimed to map existing national spine surgery registries and highlight their features and organisational standards to provide an essential reference for establishing other national registries.

METHODS

A scoping search was performed using the Embase, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for the terms "registry", "register", "implantable", and all terms and synonyms related to spinal diseases and national registries in publications from January 2000 to December 2020. This search was later updated and finalised through a web search and an ad hoc survey to collect further detailed information.

RESULTS

Sixty-two peer-reviewed articles were included, which were related to seven national spine registries, six of which were currently active. Three additional active national registries were found through the web search. The nine selected national registries were set up between 1998 and 2021. They collect data on the procedure and use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified nine currently active national spine surgery registries. However, globally accepted standards for developing a national registry of spine surgery are yet to be established. Therefore, an international effort to increase result comparability across registries is highly advisable. We hope the recent initiative from the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) to establish an international collaboration will meet these needs.

Analysis of reported adverse events of pipeline stents for intracranial aneurysms using the FDA MAUDE database

OBJECTIVE

Flow diverting stents (FDS) are a validated device in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, allowing for minimally invasive intervention. However, after its approval for use in the United States in 2011, post-market surveillance of adverse events is limited. This study aims to address this critical knowledge gap by analyzing the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for patient and device related (PR and DR) reports of adverse events and malfunctions.

METHODS

Using post-market surveillance data from the MAUDE database, PR and DR reports from January 2012-December 2021 were extracted, compiled, and analyzed with R-Studio version 2021.09.2. PR and DR reports with insufficient information were excluded. Raw information was organized, and further author generated classifications were created for both PR and DR reports.

RESULTS

A total of 2203 PR and 4017 DR events were recorded. The most frequently reported PR adverse event categories were cerebrovascular (60%), death (11%), and neurological (8%). The most frequent PR adverse event reports were death (11%), thrombosis/thrombus (9%) cerebral infarction (8%), decreased therapeutic response (7%), stroke/cerebrovascular accident (6%), intracranial hemorrhage (5%), aneurysm (4%), occlusion (4%), headache (4%), neurological deficit/dysfunction (3%). The most frequent DR reports were activation/positioning/separation problems (52%), break (9%), device operates differently than expected (4%), difficult to open or close (4%), material deformation (3%), migration or expulsion of device (3%), detachment of device or device component (2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-market surveillance is important to guide patient counselling and identify adverse events and device problems that were not identified in initial trials. We present frequent reports of several types of cerebrovascular and neurological adverse events as well as the most common device shortcomings that should be explored by manufacturers and future studies. Although inherent limitations to the MAUDE database are present, our results highlight important PR and DR complications that can help optimize patient counseling and device development.

Endovascular versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: a claims-based data analysis in Japan

Objectives

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.

Design

Retrospective data analysis.

Setting

The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.

Participants

The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.

Main outcome measures

Overall survival and reintervention rates.

Results

We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0–67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0–69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0–59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0–67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.

Conclusions

Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.