Unique device identifiers for coronary stent postmarket surveillance and research: a report from the Food and Drug Administration Medical Device Epidemiology Network Unique Device Identifier demonstration.

BACKGROUND: Although electronic product identification in the consumer sector is ubiquitous, unique identification of medical devices is just being implemented in 2014. To evaluate unique device identifiers (UDIs) in health care, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) funded the Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative, including a demonstration of the implementation of coronary stent UDI data in the information systems of a multihospital system (Mercy Health). This report describes the first phase of the demonstration. METHODS: An expert panel of interventional cardiologists nominated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was convened with representatives of industry, health system members of the Healthcare Transformation Group, the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry, and FDA to articulate concepts needed to best use UDI-associated data. The expert panel identified 3: (1) use cases for UDI-associated data (eg, research), (2) a supplemental data set of clinically relevant attributes (eg, stent dimensions), and (3) governance and administrative principles for the authoritative management of these data. RESULTS: Eighteen use cases were identified, encompassing clinical care, supply chain management, consumer information, research, regulatory, and surveillance domains. In addition to the attributes of the FDA Global Unique Device Identification Database, 9 additional coronary stent-specific attributes were required to address use case requirements. Recommendations regarding governance were elucidated as foundational principles for UDI-associated data management. CONCLUSIONS: This process for identifying requisite extensions to support the effective use of UDI-associated data should be generalizable. Implementation of a UDI system for medical devices must anticipate both global and device-specific information.

Long-term clinical outcomes with zotarolimus-eluting versus bare-metal coronary stents.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the long-term safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) using a pooled analysis of pivotal trials. BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), have reduced restenosis; however, individual trials of these stents have not had sufficient power to ascertain long-term safety. METHODS: We combined patient level data from 6 prospective randomized single-arm multicenter trials involving 2,132 patients treated with ZES and 596 patients treated with a BMS control. The median follow-up was 4.1 years, with 5-year follow-up completed in 1,256 patients (97% of those eligible). The recommended minimum duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in these studies was 3 to 6 months regardless of stent type. An independent events committee adjudicated all events. The 2 treatment groups were compared after adjustment for between trial variation and for individual patient clinical and angiographic characteristics by propensity score. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of adverse events at 5 years for ZES and BMS were: death: 5.9% versus 7.6% (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.81, p = 0.34), cardiac death: 2.4 versus 3.7% (0.83, p = 0.57), myocardial infarction: 3.4 versus 4.8% (0.77, p = 0.37), target lesion revascularization: 7.0% vs. 16.5% (0.42, p < 0.001), stent thrombosis (definite or probable): 0.8 versus 1.7% (0.50, p = 0.21). After adjustment for variation in study and patient characteristics, there were no significant differences in stent thrombosis or the clinical safety event rates at 5 years between ZES and BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Over 5 years, there was no increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, and there was a benefit of prevention of repeat revascularization procedures in ZES compared with BMS.

A randomized comparison of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in de novo native coronary lesions 12-month outcomes from the ENDEAVOR IV trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-eluting stents have reduced angiographic and clinical restenosis, but long-term safety remains controversial. A second-generation drug-eluting stent, which delivers zotarolimus, a potent antiproliferative agent, via a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer on a cobalt alloy thin-strut stent has shown promising experimental and early clinical results. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with single de novo coronary lesions treated with ZES or PES. The primary end point was noninferiority of 9-month target vessel failure defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,548 patients assigned to ZES (n = 773) or PES (n = 775), at 9 months, ZES was noninferior to PES with rates of target vessel failure 6.6% versus 7.1%, respectively (p(noninferiority) < or = 0.001). There were fewer periprocedural myocardial infarctions with ZES (0.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007), whereas at 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Although incidence of 8-month binary angiographic in-segment restenosis was higher in patients treated with ZES versus PES (15.3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.228), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (3.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.756). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that ZES has similar clinical safety and efficacy compared with PES in simple and medium complexity single de novo coronary lesions. (ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial; NCT00217269).

Determining the need for simulated training of invasive procedures.

Unlike the airline industry, where pilots first learn to fly on simulators before navigating planes, physicians practice invasive procedures on real patients. To determine the need for the simulated training of invasive procedures prior to working on patients, we studied the views of physicians-in-training. Five hundred medical students, residents, and fellows at Harvard Medical School were asked if there was a problem with the way medical procedures presently are learned in health care. Next, they were surveyed to inquire whether using a simulator would be beneficial. Finally, they were asked what specific procedures would be most suitable for virtual training. The effects of respondent gender, level of training, specialty, and previous experience using simulation on survey results was tested using Student t-tests. One hundred and fifty-eight trainees responded that they were uncomfortable learning to perform invasive procedures on patients. Students and physicians were very interested in obtaining simulated training prior to practicing on patients. The more complicated the procedure, the greater the feeling that it should be simulated prior to attempting it on patients. Respondents most preferred that simulation be used to teach chest tube placement. Respondent gender, specialty, level of training, and prior simulation experience did not affect survey results (p > 0.05). Simulation should be incorporated into the education of medical students and residents as a tool to practice invasive procedures prior to working on patients.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with native coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This trial examined the relative clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes, and safety of zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents (ZES) with a phosphorylcholine polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). BACKGROUND: Whether a cobalt-based alloy stent coated with the novel antiproliferative agent, zotarolimus, and a phosphorylcholine polymer may provide similar angiographic and clinical benefit compared with SES is undetermined. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, 3:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ZES (n = 323) relative to SES (n = 113) in 436 patients undergoing elective percutaneous revascularization of de novo native coronary lesions with reference vessel diameters between 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm and lesion length > or =14 mm and < or =27 mm. The primary end point was 8-month angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. RESULTS: Angiographic in-segment late lumen loss was significantly higher among patients treated with ZES compared with SES (0.34 +/- 0.44 mm vs. 0.13 +/- 0.32 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events were significantly lower among patients treated with ZES (0.6% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.04). In-segment binary angiographic restenosis was also higher in the ZES cohort (11.7% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.04). Total (clinically and non-clinically driven) target lesion revascularization rates at 9 months were 9.8% and 3.5% for the ZES and SES groups, respectively (p = 0.04). However, neither clinically driven target lesion revascularization (6.3% zotarolimus vs. 3.5% sirolimus, p = 0.34) nor target vessel failure (12.0% zotarolimus vs. 11.5% sirolimus, p = 1.0) differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SES, treatment with a phosphorylcholine polymer-based ZES is associated with significantly higher late lumen loss and binary restenosis at 8-month angiographic follow-up. (The Endeavor III CR; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00265668?order=1?).