Search

Background and Aims The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021. Methods Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000–21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. Results At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P <.001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P <.001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016–21. Conclusions The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000–21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the underutilization of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the evaluation of cardiovascular medical devices. The authors acknowledge that RCTs may not always be feasible or ethical, particularly in high-risk interventions or vulnerable populations. However, they argue that RCTs provide unbiased data and are the most stringent way to determine the cause-effect relationship between interventions and outcomes. The article also highlights the need for improved transparency and quality of evidence for high-risk medical devices in the European Union. The authors emphasize the importance of prioritizing and efficiently conducting RCTs to inform healthcare providers and patients about the safety and performance of newly approved devices. [Extracted from the article]

Aims: In adults with congenital heart disease and systemic right ventricles, progressive right ventricular systolic dysfunction is common and is associated with adverse outcomes. Our aim was to assess the impact of the phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor tadalafil on right ventricular systolic function., Methods and Results: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre superiority trial (NCT03049540) involving 100 adults with systemic right ventricles (33 women, mean age: 40.7 ± 10.7 years), comparing tadalafil 20 mg once daily versus placebo (1:1 ratio). The primary endpoint was the change in right ventricular end-systolic volume after 3 years of therapy. Secondary endpoints were changes in right ventricular ejection fraction, exercise capacity and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration. Primary endpoint assessment by intention to treat analysis at 3 years of follow-up was possible in 83 patients (42 patients in the tadalafil group and 41 patients in the placebo group). No significant changes over time in right ventricular end-systolic volumes were observed in the tadalafil and the placebo group, and no significant differences between treatment groups (3.4 ml, 95% confidence interval -4.3 to 11.0, p = 0.39). No significant changes over time were observed for the pre-specified secondary endpoints for the entire study population, without differences between the tadalafil and the placebo group., Conclusions: In this trial in adults with systemic right ventricles, right ventricular systolic function, exercise capacity and neuro-hormonal activation remained stable over a 3-year follow-up period. No significant treatment effect of tadalafil was observed. Further research is needed to find effective treatment for improvement of ventricular function in adults with systemic right ventricles., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)