Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Postmarket surveillance of medical devices: current capabilities and future opportunities

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recalls of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) currently impact hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide. Premarket evaluation of CIEDs cannot be expected to eliminate all performance defects. Robust postmarket surveillance systems are needed to promote patient safety and reduce harm. Challenges impacting existing surveillance mechanisms include underreporting of defects, low rates of return of explanted CIEDs, lack of integration of surveillance into normal workflow, underutilization of existing resources including registries, a lack of capacity of aging resources, multiple proprietary platforms that lack interoperability, and the unmet need for common data variables as well as newer methods to generate, synthesize, analyze, and interpret evidence in order to respond rapidly to safety signals. Long-term solutions include establishing a unique device identification system; promoting expanded use of registries for surveillance and post-approval studies; developing additional methods to combine evidence from diverse data sources; creating tools and implementing strategies for universal automatic, triggered electronic event reporting; and refining methods to rapidly identify and interpret safety signals. Protection from litigation and creation of financial and other incentives by legislators, regulators, payers, accreditation organizations, and licensing boards can be expanded to increase participation in device surveillance by clinicians and health care facilities. Research to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of surveillance strategies is needed. Interim solutions to improve CIED surveillance while new initiatives are launched and the system strengthened are also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices. List of device recalls. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/RecallsCorrectionsRemovals/ListofRecalls/default.htm. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  2. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21. Subpart C. Section 7.40. Recalls (Including Product Corrections)—Guidance on Policy, Procedures, and Industry Responsibilities.

  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA 101: product recalls: from first alert to effectiveness checks. http://www.fda.gov/consumer. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  4. Swerdlow, C. D., Gunderson, B. D., Ousdigian, K. T., et al. (2010). Downloadable software algorithm reduces inappropriate shocks caused by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead fractures. A prospective study. Circulation, 122, 1449–1455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Code of Federal Regulations (21CFR812.2).

  6. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Development and approval process (Drugs). Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/default.htm. Accessed 3 Nov 2012

  7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Total product life cycle data sources and disclaimers. Information at: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco. Accessed 6 June 2012.

  8. Medical Device Amendments of 1976, Public Law No. 94–295. Stat 539.

  9. Council, N. R. (2011). Medical devices and the public's health: the FDA 510(k) clearance process at 35 years. Washington, DC: The National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Proceedings Document from the Policy Conference on Pacemaker and ICD Performance. Presented by the Heart Rhythm Society and the Food and Drug Administration, September 16, 2005. Available at: http://www.hrsonline.org/ClinicalGuidance/Proceedings-from-Sept-2005-Policy-Conf.cfm. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  11. Carlson, M. D., Wilkoff, B. L., Maisel, W. H., Carlson, M. D., Ellenbogen, K. A., Saxon, L. A., et al. (2006). Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on device performance policies and guidelines. Heart Rhythm, 3, 1250–1273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maisel, W. H., Hauser, R. G., Hammill, S. C., Hauser, R. G., Ellenbogen, K. A., Epstein, A. E., et al. (2009). Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on lead performance policies and guidelines. Heart Rhythm, 6, 869–885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein, A. E., Baker, J. H., Beau, S. L., et al. (2009). Performance of the St Jude Medical Riata Leads. Heart Rhythm, 6, 204–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. St. Jude Medical Corporation. Dear Doctor Letter. Important product information. Riata Silicone Leads. Available online at: http://www.sjmprofessional.com/Resources/product-notices-advisories/riata-important-information-us.aspx. Accessed 4 November 2012.

  15. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. St. Jude Medical, Riata and Riata ST Silicone Endocardial Defibrillation Leads: Class 1 Recall—failures with lead insulation. December 21, 2011. Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm284390.htm. Accessed 4 November 2012.

  16. Hauser, R. G. (2012). Here we go again—another failure of postmarketing device surveillance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366, 873–875.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Resnic, F. S., & Normand, S. T. (2012). Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices—filling the gaps. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366, 875–877.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Swerdlow, C. D., & Friedman, P. A. (2006). Advanced ICD troubleshooting: part II. PACE, 29, 70–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greenspon, A. J., Patel, J. D., Lau, E., et al. (2012). Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 60, 1540–1545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gross, T. P., & Kessler, L. G. (1996). Medical device vigilance at FDA. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 28, 17–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Varma, N., Epstein, A. E., Irimpen, A., et al. (2010). Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation, 122, 325–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pron, G., Ieraci, L., & Kaulback, K. (2012). Internet-based device assisted remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series, 12, 1–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Crossley, G. H., Chen, J., Choucair, W., et al. (2009). Clinical benefits of remote vs transtelephonic monitoring of implanted pacemakers. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 54, 2012–2019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kirkpatrick, J. N., Ghani, S. N., Burke, M. C., & Knight, B. P. (2007). Postmortem interrogation and retrieval of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators: a survey of morticians and patients. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 18, 478–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Classification of devices. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/default.htm. Accessed online 4 Nov 2012.

  26. Feigel DW. CDRH Vision—total product life cycle. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3799s1_11_Feigal. Accessed online 4 Nov 2012.

  27. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Strengthening our national system for medical device postmarket surveillance. 2012. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  28. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Device Epidemiology Network Initiative (MDEpiNet). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ScienceandResearch/EpidemiologyMedicalDevices/MedicalDeviceEpidemiologyNetworkMDEpiNet. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  29. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Report of a meeting: leveraging registries with medical device data for postmarket surveillance throughout the total product life cycle. Held September 12, 2012. Information can be obtained at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-08-30/pdf/2012-21437.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  30. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE. Accessed 6 June 2012.

  31. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun). Available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/MedSunMedicalProductsSafetyNetwork. Accessed 6 June 2012.

  32. 522 Post Market Surveillance Studies. Frequently asked questions. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/PostmarketSurveillance. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  33. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Report of a Public Workshop—design and methodology for postmarket surveillance studies under Section 522 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, held March 7, 2012. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevicesRegulationandGuidance. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  34. FDA Safety Communication: premature insulation failure in Recalled Riata Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) Leads Manufactured by St. Jude Medical, Inc. Issued August 12, 2012. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm314930.htm. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Sentinel initiative: a national strategy for monitoring medical product safety. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/FDASentinelInitiative/ucm089474.htm. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  36. Platt, R., Wilson, M., Chan, K. A., Benner, J. S., Marchibroda, J., & McClellan, M. (2009). The New Sentinel Network—improving the evidence of medical product safety. The New England Journal of Medicine, 361, 645–647.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. The Brookings Institution. FDA Sentinel initiative strategic review: report of a meeting at Brookings Institution, September 26–27, 2011. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/09/26-sentinel-initiative. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  38. 112th Congress. S. 3187. Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. 2012. Information available at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3187. Accessed online 29 June 2012.

  39. Medical Device Epidemiology Network Initiative (MDEpiNet). Information available at: http://fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ScienceandResearch/EpidemiologyMedicalDevices/MedicalDeviceEpidemiologyNetwork. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  40. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, eds. (2007) Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. (Prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc. dba Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA29020050035I TO1.) AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC001-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

  41. Caceres, M., Braud, R. L., & Garrett, H. E. (2010). A short history of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons national cardiac database: perceptions of a practicing surgeon. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 89, 332–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miller, M. A., Ulisney, K., & Baldwin, J. T. (2010). INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support): a new paradigm for translating registry data into clinical practice. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 56, 738–740.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hammill, S. C., Stevenson, L. W., Kadish, A. H., et al. (2007). Review of the registry’s first year, data collected, and future plans. Heart Rhythm, 4, 1260–1263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination (NCD) for implantable automatic defibrillators. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx. Accessed 29 June 2012.

  45. Resnic, F. S., Gross, T. P., Marinac-Dabic, D., et al. (2010). Automated surveillance to detect post-procedure safety signals of approved cardiovascular devices. Journal of the American Medical Association, 304, 2019–2027.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Blumenthal, D. (2010). Launching HITECH. New England Journal of Medicine, 362, 382–385.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. McDonough, J. E. (2012). The road ahead for the affordable care act. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 199–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012) Office of the National Coordinator-Health Information Technology. Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. Stage 2 Final Rule. September 13, 2012.

  49. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management. BMJ, 320, 768–770.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Labin J. Privacy Issues Surrounding Personal Identification Systems. April 1996. Available online at: http://www.ct.gov/dss/lib/dss/PDFs/diprivac.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

  51. American Board of Internal Medicine. Maintenance of Certification. Available online at: www.abim.org. Accessed 4 Nov 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Medical Technology Policy, Suite 631, 401. E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA

    Kathleen Blake

Authors
  1. Kathleen Blake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen Blake.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blake, K. Postmarket surveillance of medical devices: current capabilities and future opportunities. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 36, 119–127 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-013-9778-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-013-9778-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation