Risk-benefit value of upper extremity function by an implanted electrical stimulation device targeting chronic cervical spinal cord injury.

Study design: A cross-sectional stated-preference survey using direct-assessment questions. Objective: To determine the relative value placed on different outcomes to be used in a pivotal trial for the upper extremity configuration of the Networked Neuroprosthesis (NNP) as well as the tolerance of the expected adverse event profile. Setting: Academic medical center in the United States. Methods: Distribution of an online survey to adults living with tetraplegia; extent of agreement with each question/statement was obtaining using a 1-7 Likert scale. Results: There were 8 statements about potential benefits in arm/hand function; for all statements, more than 70% of participants rated the functions as "1-very important" to regain. There were variable degrees of concern related to risks that could occur during the 30-day post-surgical period and increasing degrees of concern related to risks that could occur in the first 5 years, potentially due to the device, based on the increasing degree of invasiveness of the intervention required to address the event. When analysing the results based on all degrees of interest, more than 64% of responders were interested in getting the NNP with a success rate threshold as low as 50% regardless of time post-injury. Chi-squared analyses revealed some associations between responses and sex, injury level, and injury duration; however, none of these were statistically significant upon post-hoc analysis. Conclusion: Data here indicate that people with tetraplegia are highly interested in a range of arm/hand functions and are tolerant of expected risks that may be associated with implanted neuroprosthetics. Sponsorship: The Institute for Functional Restoration funded this project through a sub-contract to K.D. Anderson from a larger Special Projects Award (grant number FP0020773) from the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation.

Proceedings of the second biennial Cleveland Neural Engineering Workshop 2013.

The Cleveland Neural Engineering Workshop (NEW) is a biennial meeting started in 2011 as an "unconference" to bring together leaders in the neural engineering and related fields. Since the first iteration of the meeting, NEW has evolved from "just getting together" to a more important purpose of creating, reviewing, and promoting a uniform strategic roadmap for the field. The purpose of this short report, as well as the companion 2015 and 2017 reports, is to provide a historical record of this meeting and the evolution of the roadmap. These reports more importantly establish a baseline for the next meeting to be held in June, 2019. The second Neural Engineering Workshop (NEW) was held in June 2013. The two-day workshop was hosted by the Cleveland Advanced Platform for Technology National Veterans Affairs Center, the Functional Electrical Stimulation National Veterans Affairs Center, and the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Participants identified seven areas of future focus in the field of neural engineering: active communications with users, advocacy (regulatory), network building (clinical practice), case studies (clinical and technical), early industrial feedback, value chain resources, engagement, and advocacy (funding). This proceedings document summarizes the meeting outcome.

Decision analysis of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients without pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Retrievable filters are increasingly implanted for prophylaxis in patients without pulmonary embolism (PE) but who may be at transient risk. These devices are often not removed after the risk of PE has diminished. This study employs decision analysis to weigh the risks and benefits of retrievable filter use as a function of the filter's time in situ. METHODS: Medical literature on patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and a transient risk of PE were reviewed. Weights reflecting relative severity were assigned to each adverse event. The risk score was defined as weight × occurrence rate and combines the frequency and severity for each type of adverse event. The value function in the decision model combines the following risks: (1) risk in situ; (2) risk of removal, and (3) relative risk without filters. A decreasing net risk score represents a net expected benefit, and an increasing net risk score indicates the expected harm outweighs the expected benefit. RESULTS: The net risk score reaches its minimum between day 29 and 54 postimplantation. This is consistent with an increasing net risk associated with continued use of retrievable IVC filters in patients with transient, reversible risk of PE. The results were insensitive to reasonable variations in the assessed weights and adverse event occurrence rates. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with retrievable IVC filters in whom the transient risk of PE has passed, quantitative decision analysis suggests the benefit/risk profile begins to favor filter removal between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

Pacemaker and ICD generator malfunctions: analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual reports.

CONTEXT: Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are complex medical devices proven to reduce mortality in specific high-risk patient populations. It is not known if increasing device complexity is associated with decreased reliability. OBJECTIVES: To analyze postapproval annual reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by manufacturers of pacemakers and ICDs to determine the reported number and rate of pacemaker and ICD malfunctions and to assess trends in device performance. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pacemaker and ICD annual reports submitted to the FDA for the years 1990-2002 were reviewed. A pacemaker or ICD generator was defined as having malfunctioned if it was explanted due to an observed malfunction, returned to the manufacturer, and confirmed by the manufacturer to be functioning inappropriately. Leads and biventricular devices were not included in the study. Deaths were attributed to device malfunction only if they were witnessed, the malfunction immediately led to the death, and the malfunction was confirmed by the manufacturer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of implanted pacemaker and ICD generators; number of reported malfunctions; and annual malfunction replacement rates. Generator malfunction replacement rates were defined as the annual number of replacements due to confirmed malfunction divided by the annual number of implants. RESULTS: During the study period, 2.25 million pacemakers and 415,780 ICDs were implanted in the United States. Overall, 17,323 devices (8834 pacemakers and 8489 ICDs) were explanted due to confirmed malfunction. Battery/capacitor abnormalities (4085 malfunctions [23.6%]) and electrical issues (4708 malfunctions [27.1%]) accounted for half of the total device failures. The annual pacemaker malfunction replacement rate per 1000 implants decreased significantly during the study, from a peak of 9.0 in 1993 to a low of 1.4 in 2002 (P = .006 for trend). In contrast, the ICD malfunction replacement rate per 1000 implants, after decreasing from 38.6 in 1993 to 7.9 in 1996, increased markedly during the latter half of the study, peaking in 2001 at 36.4 (P = .04 for trend). More than half of the reported ICD malfunctions occurred in the last 3 years of the study. Overall, the annual ICD malfunction replacement rate was significantly higher than the pacemaker malfunction replacement rate (mean [SD], 20.7 [11.6] vs 4.6 [2.2] replacements per 1000 implants; P<.001; rate ratio, 5.9 [95% confidence interval, 2.7-9.1]). Sixty-one deaths (30 pacemaker patients, 31 ICD patients) were attributable to device malfunction. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that thousands of patients have been affected by pacemaker and ICD malfunctions, the pacemaker malfunction replacement rate has decreased, the ICD malfunction replacement rate increased during the latter half of the study, and the ICD malfunction replacement rate is significantly higher than that for pacemakers. Although pacemakers and ICDs are important life-sustaining devices that have saved many lives, careful monitoring of device performance is still required.

Cardiac resynchronization devices: the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory considerations.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices have been studied clinically since 1998, and have been on the U.S. market since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the first product in 2001. Since that time, the FDA has approved many different models from three different manufacturers, representing the first and second generations of these products. All of these products have undergone the FDA pre-market approval process, which examines the safety and effectiveness of the devices for their intended use. Over the last several years, the FDA has adapted recommendations for CRT clinical trials based on an evolving understanding of what these devices can achieve. This paper will outline the dynamic nature of the FDA's approval process for CRT devices and briefly review the clinical trial designs for the first generation devices.

A US Food and Drug Administration perspective on cardiac resynchronization and ventricular assist device trials.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy and ventricular assist devices are two of the many US Food and Drug Administration-regulated medical device technologies that are intended for patients with heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy devices have been shown to significantly improve the quality and potentially the duration of life for patients with moderate-to-severe congestive heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony. Likewise, ventricular assist devices have benefited patients with end-stage heart failure through both bridge-to-transplant and destination therapy. The pivotal trials that supported the first approvals for these devices, as well as subsequent trials, were shaped by unique technologic and patient-related concerns. The US Food and Drug Administration has worked to understand these evolving concerns and the role each should play in the design of trials intended to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of these critical devices.

Preclinical testing for aortic endovascular grafts: results of a Food and Drug Administration workshop.

BACKGROUND: Since their introduction into clinical trials in the United States, endovascular aortic grafts have shown various types of problems. Although details of design and construction vary between different endovascular grafts and failure modes have had a variety of causes and clinical effects, the inability of preclinical testing to predict these failures remains common to all endovascular grafts. The need to improve preclinical testing in an attempt to reduce clinical device failures resulted in a Food and Drug Administration-sponsored workshop on endovascular graft preclinical testing held in Rockville, Md, from July 31 to August 1, 2001. FORMAT: The workshop was not designed as a consensus conference. Instead, it provided a forum for bringing stakeholders together to define problems and identify areas of agreement and disagreement. The workshop had 34 invited participants who represented device manufacturers, the medical community, the Food and Drug Administration, and testing facilities, and international attendance was more than 120 people. OUTCOME: Discussion centered on: 1, defining the physiologic, anatomic, and morphologic characteristics of abdominal aortic aneurysms before and after endovascular graft treatment; 2, identifying the types of failures that have been observed clinically; and 3, determining which characteristics should be considered during preclinical modeling to better predict clinical performance. Attendees agreed to the need to better define and address anatomic characteristics and changes in the aneurysm after endograft treatment to optimize preclinical testing. Much discussion and little agreement occurred on the importance of flow-related forces on graft performance or the need or ability to define and model physiologic compliance during durability testing. The discussion and conclusions are summarized in this paper and are provided in detail at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/meetings/073101workshop.html. CONCLUSION: The workshop raised awareness of significant performance issues and the challenges of modeling the extremely variable and relatively undefined environment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Through the interactive format of the workshop, participants identified areas of preclinical testing, device design, and aspects of the simulated environment that need further consideration.