Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices

Faiez Zannad, Wendy Gattis Stough, Ileana L. Pina, Roxana Mehran, William T. Abraham, Stefan D. Anker, Gaetano M. De Ferrari, Andrew Farb, Nancy L. Geller, Robert S. Kieval, Cecilia Linde, Rita F. Redberg, Kenneth Stein, Alphons Vincent, Holger Woehrle, Stuart J. Pocock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several features of cardiovascular devices raise considerations for clinical trial conduct. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials remain the highest quality evidence for safety and effectiveness assessments, but, for instance, blinding may be challenging. In order to avoid bias and not confound data interpretation, the use of objective endpoints and blinding patients, study staff, core labs, and clinical endpoint committees to treatment assignment are helpful approaches. Anticipation of potential bias should be considered and planned for prospectively in a cardiovascular device trial. Prospective, single-arm studies (often referred to as registry studies) can provide additional data in some cases. They are subject to selection bias even when carefully designed; thus, they are generally not acceptable as the sole basis for pre-market approval of high risk cardiovascular devices. However, they complement the evidence base and fill the gaps unanswered by randomized trials. Registry studies present device safety and effectiveness in day-to-day clinical practice settings and detect rare adverse events in the post-market period. No single research design will be appropriate for every cardiovascular device or target patient population. The type of trial, appropriate control group, and optimal length of follow-up will depend on the specific device, its potential clinical benefits, the target patient population and the existence (or lack) of effective therapies, and its anticipated risks. Continued efforts on the part of investigators, the device industry, and government regulators are needed to reach the optimal approach for evaluating the safety and performance of innovative devices for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)30-37
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume175
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 15 2014

Fingerprint

Clinical Trials
Equipment and Supplies
Health Services Needs and Demand
Registries
Equipment Safety
Safety
Selection Bias
Industry
Research Design
Cardiovascular Diseases
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Personnel
Control Groups

Keywords

  • Cardiovascular devices
  • Clinical trial
  • Device approval
  • Research design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Zannad, F., Stough, W. G., Pina, I. L., Mehran, R., Abraham, W. T., Anker, S. D., ... Pocock, S. J. (2014). Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices. International Journal of Cardiology, 175(1), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.05.021

Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices. / Zannad, Faiez; Stough, Wendy Gattis; Pina, Ileana L.; Mehran, Roxana; Abraham, William T.; Anker, Stefan D.; De Ferrari, Gaetano M.; Farb, Andrew; Geller, Nancy L.; Kieval, Robert S.; Linde, Cecilia; Redberg, Rita F.; Stein, Kenneth; Vincent, Alphons; Woehrle, Holger; Pocock, Stuart J.

In: International Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 175, No. 1, 15.07.2014, p. 30-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zannad, F, Stough, WG, Pina, IL, Mehran, R, Abraham, WT, Anker, SD, De Ferrari, GM, Farb, A, Geller, NL, Kieval, RS, Linde, C, Redberg, RF, Stein, K, Vincent, A, Woehrle, H & Pocock, SJ 2014, 'Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices', International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.05.021
Zannad, Faiez ; Stough, Wendy Gattis ; Pina, Ileana L. ; Mehran, Roxana ; Abraham, William T. ; Anker, Stefan D. ; De Ferrari, Gaetano M. ; Farb, Andrew ; Geller, Nancy L. ; Kieval, Robert S. ; Linde, Cecilia ; Redberg, Rita F. ; Stein, Kenneth ; Vincent, Alphons ; Woehrle, Holger ; Pocock, Stuart J. / Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices. In: International Journal of Cardiology. 2014 ; Vol. 175, No. 1. pp. 30-37.
@article{4d802c959a7f4b59b2dca0214da26508,
title = "Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices",
abstract = "Several features of cardiovascular devices raise considerations for clinical trial conduct. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials remain the highest quality evidence for safety and effectiveness assessments, but, for instance, blinding may be challenging. In order to avoid bias and not confound data interpretation, the use of objective endpoints and blinding patients, study staff, core labs, and clinical endpoint committees to treatment assignment are helpful approaches. Anticipation of potential bias should be considered and planned for prospectively in a cardiovascular device trial. Prospective, single-arm studies (often referred to as registry studies) can provide additional data in some cases. They are subject to selection bias even when carefully designed; thus, they are generally not acceptable as the sole basis for pre-market approval of high risk cardiovascular devices. However, they complement the evidence base and fill the gaps unanswered by randomized trials. Registry studies present device safety and effectiveness in day-to-day clinical practice settings and detect rare adverse events in the post-market period. No single research design will be appropriate for every cardiovascular device or target patient population. The type of trial, appropriate control group, and optimal length of follow-up will depend on the specific device, its potential clinical benefits, the target patient population and the existence (or lack) of effective therapies, and its anticipated risks. Continued efforts on the part of investigators, the device industry, and government regulators are needed to reach the optimal approach for evaluating the safety and performance of innovative devices for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.",
keywords = "Cardiovascular devices, Clinical trial, Device approval, Research design",
author = "Faiez Zannad and Stough, {Wendy Gattis} and Pina, {Ileana L.} and Roxana Mehran and Abraham, {William T.} and Anker, {Stefan D.} and {De Ferrari}, {Gaetano M.} and Andrew Farb and Geller, {Nancy L.} and Kieval, {Robert S.} and Cecilia Linde and Redberg, {Rita F.} and Kenneth Stein and Alphons Vincent and Holger Woehrle and Pocock, {Stuart J.}",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.05.021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "175",
pages = "30--37",
journal = "International Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0167-5273",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current challenges for clinical trials of cardiovascular medical devices

AU - Zannad, Faiez

AU - Stough, Wendy Gattis

AU - Pina, Ileana L.

AU - Mehran, Roxana

AU - Abraham, William T.

AU - Anker, Stefan D.

AU - De Ferrari, Gaetano M.

AU - Farb, Andrew

AU - Geller, Nancy L.

AU - Kieval, Robert S.

AU - Linde, Cecilia

AU - Redberg, Rita F.

AU - Stein, Kenneth

AU - Vincent, Alphons

AU - Woehrle, Holger

AU - Pocock, Stuart J.

PY - 2014/7/15

Y1 - 2014/7/15

N2 - Several features of cardiovascular devices raise considerations for clinical trial conduct. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials remain the highest quality evidence for safety and effectiveness assessments, but, for instance, blinding may be challenging. In order to avoid bias and not confound data interpretation, the use of objective endpoints and blinding patients, study staff, core labs, and clinical endpoint committees to treatment assignment are helpful approaches. Anticipation of potential bias should be considered and planned for prospectively in a cardiovascular device trial. Prospective, single-arm studies (often referred to as registry studies) can provide additional data in some cases. They are subject to selection bias even when carefully designed; thus, they are generally not acceptable as the sole basis for pre-market approval of high risk cardiovascular devices. However, they complement the evidence base and fill the gaps unanswered by randomized trials. Registry studies present device safety and effectiveness in day-to-day clinical practice settings and detect rare adverse events in the post-market period. No single research design will be appropriate for every cardiovascular device or target patient population. The type of trial, appropriate control group, and optimal length of follow-up will depend on the specific device, its potential clinical benefits, the target patient population and the existence (or lack) of effective therapies, and its anticipated risks. Continued efforts on the part of investigators, the device industry, and government regulators are needed to reach the optimal approach for evaluating the safety and performance of innovative devices for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

AB - Several features of cardiovascular devices raise considerations for clinical trial conduct. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials remain the highest quality evidence for safety and effectiveness assessments, but, for instance, blinding may be challenging. In order to avoid bias and not confound data interpretation, the use of objective endpoints and blinding patients, study staff, core labs, and clinical endpoint committees to treatment assignment are helpful approaches. Anticipation of potential bias should be considered and planned for prospectively in a cardiovascular device trial. Prospective, single-arm studies (often referred to as registry studies) can provide additional data in some cases. They are subject to selection bias even when carefully designed; thus, they are generally not acceptable as the sole basis for pre-market approval of high risk cardiovascular devices. However, they complement the evidence base and fill the gaps unanswered by randomized trials. Registry studies present device safety and effectiveness in day-to-day clinical practice settings and detect rare adverse events in the post-market period. No single research design will be appropriate for every cardiovascular device or target patient population. The type of trial, appropriate control group, and optimal length of follow-up will depend on the specific device, its potential clinical benefits, the target patient population and the existence (or lack) of effective therapies, and its anticipated risks. Continued efforts on the part of investigators, the device industry, and government regulators are needed to reach the optimal approach for evaluating the safety and performance of innovative devices for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

KW - Cardiovascular devices

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Device approval

KW - Research design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902536277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902536277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.05.021

DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.05.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 24861254

AN - SCOPUS:84902536277

VL - 175

SP - 30

EP - 37

JO - International Journal of Cardiology

JF - International Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0167-5273

IS - 1

ER -