What Is "Preclinical Device Pathology": An Introduction of the Unfamiliar

Swine models in translational research and medicine

Swine are increasingly studied as animal models of human disease. The anatomy, size, longevity, physiology, immune system, and metabolism of swine are more like humans than traditional rodent models. In addition, the size of swine is preferred for surgical placement and testing of medical devices destined for humans. These features make swine useful for biomedical, pharmacological, and toxicological research. With recent advances in gene-editing technologies, genetic modifications can readily and efficiently be made in swine to study genetic disorders. In addition, gene-edited swine tissues are necessary for studies testing and validating xenotransplantation into humans to meet the critical shortfall of viable organs versus need. Underlying all of these biomedical applications, the knowledge of husbandry, background diseases and lesions, and biosecurity needs are important for productive, efficient, and reproducible research when using swine as a human disease model for basic research, preclinical testing, and translational studies.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider for Medical Device Implant Site Evaluation in Nonclinical Studies

Nonclinical implantation studies are a common and often critical step for medical device safety assessment in the bench-to-market pathway. Nonclinical implanted medical devices or drug-device combination products require complex macroscopic and microscopic pathology evaluations due to the physical presence of the device itself and unique tissue responses to device materials. The Medical Device Implant Site Evaluation working group of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's (STP) Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee (SRPC) was tasked with reviewing scientific, technical, and regulatory considerations for these studies. Implant site evaluations require highly specialized methods and analytical schemes that should be designed on a case-by-case basis to address specific study objectives. Existing STP best practice recommendations can serve as a framework when performing nonclinical studies under Good Laboratory Practices and help mitigate limitations in standards and guidances for implant evaluations (e.g., those from the International Organization for Standardization [ISO], ASTM International). This article integrates standards referenced by sponsors and regulatory bodies with practical pathology evaluation methods for implantable medical devices and combination products. The goal is to ensure the maximum accuracy and scientific relevance of pathology data acquired during a medical device or combination drug-device implantation study.

Reduction in Pulmonary Vein Stenosis and Collateral Damage With Pulsed Field Ablation Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation in a Canine Model

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is a highly morbid condition that can result after catheter ablation for PV isolation. We hypothesized that pulsed field ablation (PFA) would reduce PV stenosis risk and collateral injury compared with irrigated radiofrequency ablation (IRF).

METHODS

IRF and PFA deliveries were randomized in 8 dogs with 2 superior PVs ablated using one technology and 2 inferior PVs ablated using the other technology. IRF energy (25-30 W) or PFA was delivered (16 pulse trains) at each PV in a proximal and in a distal site. Contrast computed tomography scans were collected at 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12-week (termination) time points to monitor PV cross-sectional area at each PV ablation site.

RESULTS

Maximum average change in normalized cross-sectional area at 4-weeks was -46.1±45.1% post-IRF compared with -5.5±20.5% for PFA (P≤0.001). PFA-treated targets showed significantly fewer vessel restrictions compared with IRF (P≤0.023). Necropsy showed expansive PFA lesions without stenosis in the proximal PV sites, compared with more confined and often incomplete lesions after IRF. At the distal PV sites, only IRF ablations were grossly identified based on focal fibrosis. Mild chronic parenchymal hemorrhage was noted in 3 left superior PV lobes after IRF. Damage to vagus nerves as well as evidence of esophagus dilation occurred at sites associated with IRF. In contrast, no lung, vagal nerve, or esophageal injury was observed at PFA sites.

CONCLUSIONS

PFA significantly reduced risk of PV stenosis compared with IRF postprocedure in a canine model. IRF also caused vagus nerve, esophageal, and lung injury while PFA did not.