- Alan G Fraser, reader in cardiology1,
- Mitchell W Krucoff, professor of medicine/cardiology2,
- Ralph G Brindis, immediate past president, American College of Cardiology3,
- Michel Komajda, president, European Society of Cardiology4,
- Sidney C Smith Jr, president, World Heart Federation5
- 1Wales Heart Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK
- 2Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham NC, USA
- 3Northern California Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California, USA
- 4Institut de Cardiologie, CHU Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France
- 5University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC, USA
- Correspondence to: A G Fraser fraserag{at}cf.ac.uk
No implantable medical device is perfectly safe. It is the duty of manufacturers and regulators to minimise risks—and the purpose of evaluating and regulating devices is to ensure safety and effectiveness.
The product life cycle of many medical devices is short—often quoted as an average of two years or less—because of the rapid rate of technological change and because of frequent modifications (called iterative changes) to their design, manufacture, or programming. It would be desirable for all implantable devices to undergo long term clinical studies—but there is pressure from interventional specialists as well as from industry to base approval on shorter term studies with surrogate rather than clinical end points. This facilitates innovation but transfers responsibility for proof of safety and clinical efficacy to follow-up studies.
Regulatory approval in Europe hinges on the principle that as long as a device has been shown to perform its stated task, it can be approved if its potential benefits outweigh any expected risks. Approval on this basis can mean estimating benefit before clinical effectiveness has been confirmed, and it means accepting some risk as the trade-off for more rapid availability of devices. The system of approval by 74 notified bodies in the European Union (EU) …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27