Overview of 2024 FDA Advisory Panel Meeting on the TriClip transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common and associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Because the effectiveness and safety of medical and surgical treatments are limited, there is a significant unmet need for the treatment of this disease. Therefore, there is a growing market for percutaneous devices that offer safer, less invasive, and more effective treatment options in this patient population. On February 13, 2024, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel to discuss the safety and effectiveness of the TriClip Transcatheter Valve Repair System (Abbott, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Several important points were discussed, including newly published data from the TRILUMINATE Pivotal study, the use of patient-oriented outcomes for device approval, and a discussion about training requirements and rollout plans when approving a breakthrough device. In this manuscript, we summarize the data presented by the sponsor and FDA and describe the deliberations and discussions during the meeting.

Integrated Devices: A New Regulatory Pathway to Promote Revolutionary Innovation.

Policy Points Current medical device regulatory frameworks date back half a century and are ill suited for the next generation of medical devices that involve a significant software component. Existing Food and Drug Administration efforts are insufficient because of a lack of statutory authority, whereas international examples offer lessons for improving and harmonizing domestic medical device regulatory policy. A voluntary alternative pathway built upon two-stage review with individual component review followed by holistic review for integrated devices would provide regulators with new tools to address a changing medical device marketplace.

Device regulation and surveillance in vascular care: Challenges and opportunities.

Cardiovascular devices are essential for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases including cerebrovascular, coronary, valvular, congenital, peripheral vascular and arrhythmic diseases. The regulation and surveillance of vascular devices in real-world practice, however, presents challenges during each individual product's life cycle. Four examples illustrate recent challenges and questions regarding safety, appropriate use and efficacy arising from FDA approved devices used in real-world practice. We outline potential pathways wherein providers, regulators and payors could potentially provide high-quality cardiovascular care, identify safety signals, ensure equitable device access, and study potential issues with devices in real-world practice.

Overview of the 2023 FDA Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel meeting on the Recor Paradise Ultrasound-Based Renal Denervation System.

Hypertension continues to be a prominent, avoidable factor contributing to major vascular issues on a global scale. Even with lifestyle adjustments and more aggressive medical treatments, maintaining optimal blood pressure levels remains challenging. This challenge has driven the emergence of device-oriented approaches to address hypertension. To assess the safety and efficacy of the Recor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System, the Circulatory System Devices Panel was convened by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This manuscript provides a condensed overview of the information put forth by the sponsor and the FDA, along with an account of the considerations and conversations that took place during the meeting.

What is the MAUDE Database Telling us about 510(k) Authorization? Evaluation of Two Generations of Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistula Devices.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc (BV; now Becton, Dickinson and Company; Sparks, Maryland) received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to begin marketing the WavelinQ EndoAVF System through a process known as 510(k) authorization. Such authorization relies on BV proving that the new WavelinQ EndoAVF System was of "substantial equivalence" to the WavelinQ 4F EndoAVF System. We set forth to analyze patient problems and device issues reported for the new device and determine if they were significantly different from the predicate device its 510(k) approval was based on. METHODS: FDA database Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience was queried for all adverse report events for the WavelinQ EndoAVF System and WavelinQ 4F EndoAVF System. Data were collected on patient issues and device issues. Fisher's exact test was used. RESULTS: There were a total of 125 reports for the WavelinQ 4F EndoAVF System and 78 for the WavelinQ EndoAVF System. There was a significant increase in patient problem "hypertension" (0% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.02) for the WavelinQ EndoAVF System but a statistically significant decrease in device issue "failure to align" for the WavelinQ EndoAVF System (24.8% vs. 10.3%; P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There were changes in device and patient outcomes between the WavelinQ EndoAVF System and WavelinQ 4F EndoAVF System. While we noted a decrease in device problem "failure to align", there was an overall increase in patients' "hypertension" rates. This highlights the importance of the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience reporting in ensuring that device safety is maintained when devices are approved for marketing through the 510(k) process.

Safely Introducing New Surgical Devices in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: An Argument for Use of the IDEAL Framework.

OBJECTIVE: To review the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket regulatory and postmarket surveillance processes for 2 minimally invasive gynecologic surgery case studies-the laparoscopic power morcellator and the Essure permanent birth control device-and to introduce the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term) framework for safely introducing and monitoring minimally invasive gynecologic surgery devices. DATA SOURCES: News media publications, agency websites, legal articles, and scientific papers. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Articles and papers were selected that described events leading to FDA approval of these devices and subsequent complications. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Based on current FDA premarket regulatory processes, 67% of devices do not currently require premarket review and only 1% are subject to clinical trial requirements. The IDEAL framework delineates 5 phases for safe introduction of medical devices: idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic power morcellator and Essure cases illustrate possible shortcomings in our device approval system that could be improved upon using the IDEAL framework, which limits device use until safety and efficacy data have been established and recommends postmarket surveillance.

Is read-across for chemicals comparable to medical device equivalence and where to use it for conformity assessment?

Novel medical devices must conform to medical device regulation (MDR) for European market entry. Likewise, chemicals must comply with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) regulation. Both pose regulatory challenges for manufacturers, but concordantly provide an approach for transferring data from an already registered device or compound to the one undergoing accreditation. This is called equivalence for medical devices and read-across for chemicals. Although read-across is not explicitly prohibited in the process of medical device accreditation, it is usually not performed due to a lack of guidance and acceptance criteria from the authorities. Nonetheless, a scientifically justified read-across of material-based endpoints, as well as toxicological assessment of chemical aspects, such as extractables and leachables, can prevent failure of MDR device equivalence if data is lacking. Further, read-across, if applied correctly can facilitate the standard MDR conformity assessment. The need for read-across within medical device registration should let authorities to reconsider device accreditation and the formulation of respective guidance documents. Acceptance criteria like in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) read-across assessment framework (RAAF) are needed. This can reduce the impact of the MDR and help with keeping high European innovation device rate, beneficial for medical device patients.

The fragility index and reverse fragility index of FDA investigational device exemption trials in spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) studies are considered a gold standard of assessing safety and efficacy of novel devices through RCTs. The fragility index (FI) has emerged as a means to assess robustness of statistically significant study results and inversely, the reverse fragility index (RFI) for non-significant differences. Previous authors have defined results as fragile if loss to follow up is greater than the FI or RFI. The aim of this study was to assess the FI, RFI, and robustness of data supplied by IDE studies in spinal surgery. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcome measures conducted under IDE guidelines between 2000 and 2023. FI and RFI were calculated through successively changing events to non-events until the outcome changed to non-significance or significance, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) were calculated by dividing the FI and RFI, respectively, by the sample size. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 40 unique outcome measures; 240 outcomes were analyzed. Twenty-six studies reported 96 statistically significant results. The median FI was 6 (IQR: 3-9.25), and patients lost to follow up was greater than the FI in 99.0% (95/96) of results. The average FQ was 0.027. Thirty studies reported 144 statistically insignificant results and a median RFI of 6 (IQR: 4-8). The average RFQ extrapolated was 0.021, and loss to follow up was greater than the RFI in 98.6% (142/144) of results. CONCLUSIONS: IDE studies in spine surgery are surprisingly fragile given their reputations, large sample sizes, and intent to establish safety in investigational devices. This study found a median FI and RFI of 6. The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than FIand RFI in 98.8% (237/240) of reported outcomes. FQ and RFQ tell us that changes of two to three patients per hundred can flip the significance of reported outcomes. This is an important reminder of the limitations of RCTs. Analysis of fragility in future studies may help clarify the strength of the relationship between reported data and their conclusions.

[Monitoring System of Medical Device Adverse Events in the US and Application of MAUDE Database in Medical Device Registration].

In order to achieve precise risk control of medical devices, it is necessary to establish a scientific evaluation system throughout the entire life cycle of medical devices that focuses on risk identification and risk control. This study summarizes the medical device adverse event monitoring system of the US on regulatory agencies and regulatory law, adverse events reporting forms and time limits, adverse event database, adverse event report analysis and evaluation, as well as adverse event feedback and control. Furthermore, some examples are provided to illustrate the application of the MAUDE database in risk analysis, physical and mechanical performance research, and clinical evaluation of medical device registration and application materials.

Shoulder arthroplasty device clearance: an ancestral network analysis.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees medical device regulation and oversight in the United States, and the majority of shoulder arthroplasty devices are cleared via the 510(k) pathway, in which a device demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to a previously cleared predicate. The purpose of this study was to determine an interconnected ancestral network of shoulder arthroplasty devices and determine equivalency ties to devices subsequently recalled by the FDA for design-related issues. METHODS: The FDA 510(k) database was used to identify all legally marketed shoulder arthroplasty devices from May 28, 1976, to July 1, 2021. Direct predicate information obtained via clearance summary documents associated with each device was used to generate an ancestral genealogy network for all shoulder arthroplasty devices cleared between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021. FDA design recalls were analyzed, and the number of descendant devices was calculated for each recalled device. RESULTS: An evaluation of all 476 510(k) premarket notification pathway-cleared shoulder devices since 1976 identified 0-313 descendant devices for each. Eighty of these devices (16.8%) have since been recalled, of which 10 recalls were directly related to implant design issues. Furthermore, among 29 of the most recently cleared devices (July 1, 2020-July 1, 2021), 16 (55.2%) claim predicates devices that have subsequently been withdrawn from the market because of design-related failures. CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder arthroplasty devices are linked together via an interconnected FDA 510(k) equivalency approval network dating back to 1976 despite substantive changes in material specifications and device design, many of which have since been recalled. Many of the cleared modern devices claim predicates based on subsequently recalled prostheses.

Association Between Regulatory Submission Characteristics and Recalls of Medical Devices Receiving 510(k) Clearance.

Importance: Most regulated medical devices enter the US market via the 510(k) regulatory submission pathway, wherein manufacturers demonstrate that applicant devices are "substantially equivalent" to 1 or more "predicate" devices (legally marketed medical devices with similar intended use). Most recalled medical devices are 510(k) devices. Objective: To examine the association between characteristics of predicate medical devices and recall probability for 510(k) devices. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this exploratory cross-sectional analysis of medical devices cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2003 and 2018 via the 510(k) regulatory submission pathway, linear probability models were used to examine associations between a 510(k) device's recall status and characteristics of its predicate medical devices. Public documents for the 510(k) medical devices were collected using FDA databases. A text extraction algorithm was applied to identify predicate medical devices cited in 510(k) regulatory submissions. Algorithm-derived metadata were combined with 2003-2020 FDA recall data. Exposures: Citation of predicate medical devices with certain characteristics in 510(k) regulatory submissions, including the total number of predicate medical devices cited by the applicant device, the age of the predicate medical devices, the lack of similarity of the predicate medical devices to the applicant device, and the recall status of the predicate medical devices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Class I or class II recall of a 510(k) medical device between its FDA regulatory clearance date and December 31, 2020. Results: The sample included 35 176 medical devices, of which 4007 (11.4%) were recalled. The applicant devices cited a mean of 2.6 predicate medical devices, with mean ages of 3.6 years and 7.4 years for the newest and oldest, respectively, predicate medical devices. Of the applicant devices, 93.9% cited predicate medical devices with no ongoing recalls, 4.3% cited predicate medical devices with 1 ongoing class I or class II recall, 1.0% cited predicate medical devices with 2 ongoing recalls, and 0.8% cited predicate medical devices with 3 or more ongoing recalls. Applicant devices citing predicate medical devices with 3 or more ongoing recalls were significantly associated with a 9.31-percentage-point increase (95% CI, 2.84-15.77 percentage points) in recall probability compared with devices without ongoing recalls of predicate medical devices, or an 81.2% increase in recall probability relative to the mean recall probability. A 1-SD increase in the total number of predicate medical devices cited by the applicant device was significantly associated with a 1.25-percentage-point increase (95% CI, 0.62-1.87 percentage points) in recall probability, or an 11.0% increase in recall probability relative to the mean recall probability. A 1-SD increase in the newest age of a predicate medical device was significantly associated with a 0.78-percentage-point decrease (95% CI, 1.29-0.30 percentage points) in recall probability, or a 6.8% decrease in recall probability relative to the mean recall probability. Conclusions and Relevance: This exploratory cross-sectional study of 510(k) medical devices cleared by the FDA between 2003 and 2018 demonstrated significant associations between 510(k) submission characteristics and recalls of medical devices. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these associations.

Use of Recalled Devices in New Device Authorizations Under the US Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) Pathway and Risk of Subsequent Recalls.

Importance: In the US, nearly all medical devices progress to market under the 510(k) pathway, which uses previously authorized devices (predicates) to support new authorizations. Current regulations permit manufacturers to use devices subject to a Class I recall-the FDA's most serious designation indicating a high probability of adverse health consequences or death-as predicates for new devices. The consequences for patient safety are not known. Objective: To determine the risk of a future Class I recall associated with using a recalled device as a predicate device in the 510(k) pathway. Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, all 510(k) devices subject to Class I recalls from January 2017 through December 2021 (index devices) were identified from the FDA's annual recall listings. Information about predicate devices was extracted from the Devices@FDA database. Devices authorized using index devices as predicates (descendants) were identified using a regulatory intelligence platform. A matched cohort of predicates was constructed to assess the future recall risk from using a predicate device with a Class I recall. Main Outcomes and Measures: Devices were characterized by their regulatory history and recall history. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated to compare the risk of future Class I recalls between devices descended from predicates with matched controls. Results: Of 156 index devices subject to Class I recall from 2017 through 2021, 44 (28.2%) had prior Class I recalls. Predicates were identified for 127 index devices, with 56 (44.1%) using predicates with a Class I recall. One hundred four index devices were also used as predicates to support the authorization of 265 descendant devices, with 50 index devices (48.1%) authorizing a descendant with a Class I recall. Compared with matched controls, devices authorized using predicates with Class I recalls had a higher risk of subsequent Class I recall (6.40 [95% CI, 3.59-11.40]; P<.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Many 510(k) devices subjected to Class I recalls in the US use predicates with a known history of Class I recalls. These devices have substantially higher risk of a subsequent Class I recall. Safeguards for the 510(k) pathway are needed to prevent problematic predicate selection and ensure patient safety.

[Approval Status and Suggestions on Supervision of Class II Innovative Medical Device].

Based on the current situation of approval and publicity of class II innovative medical devices in various provinces and cities, especially after analyzing the problems found in the review of class II innovative medical devices in Shanghai and the factors affecting the listing process of innovative medical devices, this study puts forward some thoughts on supervision for reference in establishing and perfecting systems and regulations, changing the review and approval thinking, extending services to the development of innovative medical devices and the formulation of clinical trial schemes.

[Discuss Application of Real-world Data from the Boao Lecheng Pilot Zone to Support Premarket Clinical Evaluation of Medical Device].

The real-world data of Hainan Boao Lecheng International Tourism Pilot Zone has the advantage of supporting pre-market clinical evaluation of medical devices. Based on the relevant requirements of clinical evaluation of medical devices and based on the practical experience of pilot devices in the early stage, the application of Boao Lecheng real-world data in the pre-market clinical evaluation path of medical devices from the perspective of review is discussed. At the same time, the elements that should be considered in real-world study design and the way of data quality evaluation are proposed. Expect to provide a reference in order to allow registration applicants to use real world data wisely to help declare device registration for marketing.

[Introduction and Reflection on Novel Medical Device Regulatory Science Tool MDDT].

In recent years, emerging technology medical devices have developed rapidly. How to more scientifically and more efficiently regulate these novel medical devices so as to improve access to advanced medical technology while ensuring safety and effectiveness is a new challenge faced by regulatory authorities, and is also the core topic of regulatory science. New tools, new standards and new methods are important means to achieve regulatory science. "Medical Device Development Tool" proposed by the U.S. FDA is a novel medical device regulatory science tool, which can help medical device developers to predict and evaluate product performance more efficiently. It is also helpful for regulatory authorities to make regulatory decisions more efficiently. This study introduces the concept, qualification process, role of MDDT in medical device regulation and MDDT examples, and makes some discussion on the device evaluation from the perspective of reliability and validity. MDDT can facilitate the developing of novel medical device.

Regulatory strategies for early device development and approval.

The development of new technology to treat unmet clinical needs is an important component of modern cardiovascular disease. The need for this has been emphasized in the past several years beginning with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance document on Early Feasibility Studies in 2012 and then the 21st Century Cures legislation. A number of steps need to be considered in this process by the stakeholders involved including physician innovators and scientists, professional societies such as Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, regulatory agencies, and medical device companies. This article focuses on the early iterative steps required to optimize the process and achieve the goal of timely efficient innovation and device development in cardiovascular disease.

The TransMedics Organ Care System for the liver receives FDA pre-market approval.

The Federal Drug Administration grants pre-market approval to TransMedics Organ Care System Liver, a platform designed to prolong donor organ viability via ex vivo perfusion in preparation for transplant.

The FDA expands indications for the Vercise™ deep brain stimulation systems.

Deep brain stimulation technology offers symptomatic relief to patients with intractable tremor as an adjunct to traditional medical therapy. Their expanding indications signify the devices' growing potential and versatility.

Orbital Implants Receiving Food and Drug Administration Premarket Notification.

PURPOSE: This perspective explores the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) program, occasionally referred to as premarket notification, which facilitates faster marketing of Class II medical devices, such as orbital implants by demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to previously approved devices. This allows for FDA clearance, rather than FDA approval of orbital implants via comparison to currently marketed implants rather than clinically proven safety standards. METHODS: Utilizing the FDA's publicly available 510(k) Premarket Notification database, we conducted a thorough search of FDA-cleared orbital implants dating back to the inception of the 510(k) process in 1976. RESULTS: We found that 29 orbital implants received 510(k) FDA clearance between 1987 and 2022. Four of the 29 implants were recalled. Only 9 of 29 implants had available data on their predicate or comparison devices; of these 9, 3 implants received clearance based on devices that were subsequently recalled. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation into premarket approval of orbital implants identifies a shortcoming in the FDA 510(k) approval process. Long-term implant-associated morbidity is difficult to predict during premarket analysis but is further complicated for 510(k) cleared implants since devices approved based on substantial equivalence to recalled devices may not be automatically recalled. Clinicians should be aware of the approval process for the devices they select, and review of the 510(k) process, especially as it applies to substantial equivalence to devices subsequently recalled is warranted.