Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Adverse Event Reporting of Commonly Used Gender-Specific Implantable Medical Devices in the United States.
Pierce, Hudson; Ahsan, Muhammad Danyal; Martinez Diaz, Susana; Cho, Ahra; Asfaw, Tirsit; Mao, Jialin; Anger, Jennifer; Chughtai, Bilal.
Afiliação
  • Pierce H; From the Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
  • Ahsan MD; From the Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
  • Martinez Diaz S; From the Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
  • Cho A; From the Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
  • Asfaw T; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
  • Mao J; Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
  • Anger J; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Chughtai B; From the Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian, New York, NY.
J Patient Saf ; 19(7): 465-468, 2023 10 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37729644
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Evidence suggests that more women are harmed by implantable medical devices than men. It is unknown whether this difference includes gender-specific devices.

METHODS:

In this study, we examine the differences in reported adverse events between 6 female- and 5 male-specific implantable devices from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 1993 to 2018. Primary endpoints were injury type (life-threatening, disability, death) and the rate of device evaluation by the manufacturer. Proportions of valid entries across these variables were compared using either the Fisher exact test or χ2 test.

RESULTS:

Female-specific devices had higher rates of life-threatening outcomes (1.6% versus 0.3%, P < 0.001), disabilities (5.0% versus 4.3%, P < 0.001), and deaths (0.6% versus 0.1%, P < 0.001) compared with the male-specific devices. Of the 8159 devices that were evaluated by the manufacturer, 56% were female specific while 44% were male specific. Female-specific devices were evaluated far less frequently by the manufacturer (4.5% versus 38.2%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Increased adverse events reports for female-specific devices and associated high-grade complications necessitates improved postmarket surveillance.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Próteses e Implantes / Instalações de Saúde Limite: Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Patient Saf Assunto da revista: SERVICOS DE SAUDE Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Próteses e Implantes / Instalações de Saúde Limite: Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Patient Saf Assunto da revista: SERVICOS DE SAUDE Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article