Venous Access: National Guideline and Registry Development (VANGUARD): Advancing Patient-Centered Venous Access Care Through the Development of a National Coordinated Registry Network.

There are over 8 million central venous access devices inserted each year, many in patients with chronic conditions who rely on central access for life-preserving therapies. Central venous access device-related complications can be life-threatening and add tens of billions of dollars to health care costs, while their incidence is most likely grossly mis- or underreported by medical institutions. In this communication, we review the challenges that impair retention, exchange, and analysis of data necessary for a meaningful understanding of critical events and outcomes in this clinical domain. The difficulty is not only with data extraction and harmonization from electronic health records, national surveillance systems, or other health information repositories where data might be stored. The problem is that reliable and appropriate data are not recorded, or falsely recorded, at least in part because policy, payment, penalties, proprietary concerns, and workflow burdens discourage completeness and accuracy. We provide a roadmap for the development of health care information systems and infrastructure that address these challenges, framed within the context of research studies that build a framework of standardized terminology, decision support, data capture, and information exchange necessary for the task. This roadmap is embedded in a broader Coordinated Registry Network Learning Community, and facilitated by the Medical Device Epidemiology Network, a Public-Private Partnership sponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration, with the scope of advancing methods, national and international infrastructure, and partnerships needed for the evaluation of medical devices throughout their total life cycle.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID): Registry assessment of peripheral interventional devices core data elements.

OBJECTIVE: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible. METHODS: Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. RESULTS: The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID)　- Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices Core Data Elements.

BACKGROUND: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible.Methods and Results:Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.

Advancing medical device innovation through collaboration and coordination of structured data capture pilots: Report from the Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet) Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-Oriented, Time Bound (SMART) Think Tank.

The Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet) is a public private partnership (PPP) that provides a platform for collaboration on medical device evaluation and depth of expertise for supporting pilots to capture, exchange and use device information for improving device safety and protecting public health. The MDEpiNet SMART Think Tank, held in February, 2013, sought to engage expert stakeholders who were committed to improving the capture of device data, including Unique Device Identification (UDI), in key electronic health information. Prior to the Think Tank there was limited collaboration among stakeholders beyond a few single health care organizations engaged in electronic capture and exchange of device data. The Think Tank resulted in what has become two sustainable multi-stakeholder device data capture initiatives, BUILD and VANGUARD. These initiatives continue to mature within the MDEpiNet PPP structure and are well aligned with the goals outlined in recent FDA-initiated National Medical Device Planning Board and Medical Device Registry Task Force white papers as well as the vision for the National Evaluation System for health Technology.%.

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.

FDA adverse Event Problem Codes: standardizing the classification of device and patient problems associated with medical device use.

UNLABELLED: The broad array of medical devices and the potential for device failures, malfunctions, and other adverse events associated with each device creates a challenge for public health device surveillance programs. Coding reported events by type of device problem provides one method for identifying a potential signal of a larger device issue. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Event Problem Codes that are used to report adverse events previously lacked a structured set of controls for code development and maintenance. Over time this led to inconsistent, ambiguous, and duplicative concepts being added to the code set on an ad-hoc basis. Recognizing the limitation of its coding system the FDA set out to update the system to improve its usefulness within FDA and as a basis of a global standard to identify important patient and device outcomes throughout the medical community. METHODS: In 2004, FDA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby NCI agreed to provide terminology development and maintenance services to all FDA Centers. Under this MOU, CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics (OSB) convened a cross-Center workgroup and collaborated with staff at NCI Enterprise Vocabulary Service (EVS) to streamline the Patient and Device Problem Codes and integrate them into the NCI Thesaurus and Meta-Thesaurus. This initiative included many enhancements to the Event Problem Codes aimed at improving code selection as well as improving adverse event report analysis. LIMITATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff resources, database concerns, and limited collaboration with external groups in the initial phases of the project are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events associated with medical device use can be better understood when they are reported using a consistent and well-defined code set. This FDA initiative was an attempt to improve the structure and add control mechanisms to an existing code set, improve analysis tools that will better identify device safety trends, and improve the ability to prevent or mitigate effects of adverse events associated with medical device use.