Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2017
Safety profiles of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: An analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2009 to 2016.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jazayeri Mohammad-Ali, Vuddanda Venkat, Turagam Mohit K, Parikh Valay, Lavu Madhav, Atkins Donita, Earnest Matthew, Di Biase Luigi, Natale Andrea, Wilber David, Reddy Yeruva Madhu, Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a viable option for AF patients who are unable to tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC).
OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the safety of two commonly used percutaneous devices for LAA closure in the United States by analysis of surveillance data from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.
METHODS: The MAUDE database was queried between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2016 for LARIAT® (SentreHEART Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) and WATCHMAN™ (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA) devices. Among 622 retrieved medical device reports, 356 unique and relevant reports were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of safety events was calculated over the study period and compared between the two devices.
RESULTS: LAAC was performed with LARIAT in 4,889 cases. WATCHMAN was implanted in 2,027 patients prior to FDA approval in March 2015 and 3,822 patients postapproval. The composite outcome of stroke/TIA, pericardiocentesis, cardiac surgery, and death occurred more frequently with WATCHMAN (cumulative incidence, 1.93% vs. 1.15%; P = 0.001). The same phenomenon was observed when comparing the WATCHMAN pre- and postapproval experiences for the composite outcome, as well as device embolization, cardiac surgery, and myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS: MAUDE-reported data show that postapproval, new technology adoption is fraught with increased complications. Improved collaboration between operators, device manufacturers, and regulators can better serve patients through increased transparency and practical postmarket training and monitoring mechanisms.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the safety of two commonly used percutaneous devices for LAA closure in the United States by analysis of surveillance data from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.
METHODS: The MAUDE database was queried between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2016 for LARIAT® (SentreHEART Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) and WATCHMAN™ (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA) devices. Among 622 retrieved medical device reports, 356 unique and relevant reports were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of safety events was calculated over the study period and compared between the two devices.
RESULTS: LAAC was performed with LARIAT in 4,889 cases. WATCHMAN was implanted in 2,027 patients prior to FDA approval in March 2015 and 3,822 patients postapproval. The composite outcome of stroke/TIA, pericardiocentesis, cardiac surgery, and death occurred more frequently with WATCHMAN (cumulative incidence, 1.93% vs. 1.15%; P = 0.001). The same phenomenon was observed when comparing the WATCHMAN pre- and postapproval experiences for the composite outcome, as well as device embolization, cardiac surgery, and myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS: MAUDE-reported data show that postapproval, new technology adoption is fraught with increased complications. Improved collaboration between operators, device manufacturers, and regulators can better serve patients through increased transparency and practical postmarket training and monitoring mechanisms.