A framework for evidence evaluation and methodological issues in implantable device studies.

Implantable medical devices (IMD) are frequently used in interventional medicine. There are a host of complex methodological issues to consider in conducting device studies. A general conceptual framework for evidence evaluation is needed to help investigators conduct comparative studies in this setting. It is known that clinical trials of implants require study design planning and creative execution that are quite different from those in pharmaceutical setting. Important study design issues such as randomization, masking and allocation concealment require unique approaches for each device. In addition, device comparative studies must cope with sources of variability different from pharmaceutical studies. These include operator learning curve effects, hospital-operator-patient interactions, and issues related to device technical characteristics. Observational studies of IMDs are particularly challenging. Selection of comparison groups, adjusting for confounding and addressing learning curve issues needs careful planning. We propose a general framework for IMD evaluation and provide an outline of the methodological issues that require further discussion. We hope this article will inspire and help to inform those interested in advancing comparative safety and effectiveness of IMDs and to plan and pursue future methodological work in this area.

[1]  M. Pittler Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐analysis in Context , 2010 .

[2]  T. Caeiro,et al.  [Error in medicine]. , 2004, Medicina.

[3]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[4]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables: Comment , 1996 .

[5]  Robert E Harbaugh,et al.  Surgeon Volume and Operative Mortality in the United States. , 2004, Neurosurgery.

[6]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Understanding geographic variations in health care delivery. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Rouett H. Abouzelof,et al.  Surveillance of medical device-related hazards and adverse events in hospitalized patients. , 2004, JAMA.

[8]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[9]  Richard Green,et al.  Clinical competence statement on carotid stenting: training and credentialing for carotid stenting--multispecialty consensus recommendations: a report of the SCAI/SVMB/SVS Writing Committee to develop a clinical competence statement on carotid interventions. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  A. Farb,et al.  Stent thrombosis redux--the FDA perspective. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Tom Treasure,et al.  Video assisted thoracic surgery for treatment of pneumothorax and lung resections: systematic review of randomised clinical trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Bram D. Zuckerman,et al.  Challenges in regulating breakthrough medical devices. , 2005, Food and drug law journal.

[13]  Tom Treasure,et al.  Surgeons may have introduced a new operative technique in African-American patients , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[14]  P. Nordin,et al.  Volume of procedures and risk of recurrence after repair of groin hernia: national register study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  E L Hannan,et al.  Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. , 1997, JAMA.

[16]  Tom Treasure,et al.  Off-Pump Surgery Is Associated With Reduced Occurrence of Stroke and Other Morbidity as Compared With Traditional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Systematically Reviewed Trials , 2006, Stroke.

[17]  M M Thompson,et al.  The relationship between hospital case volume and outcome from carotid endartectomy in England from 2000 to 2005. , 2007, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[18]  D. Eddy Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. , 2005, Health affairs.

[19]  Annetine Gelijns,et al.  Designs for mechanical circulatory support device studies. , 2007, Journal of cardiac failure.

[20]  R. D'Agostino Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .

[21]  A S Detsky,et al.  Regional variation in medical care. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Sharon-Lise T Normand,et al.  Some Old and Some New Statistical Tools for Outcomes Research , 2008, Circulation.

[23]  Donald Rubin,et al.  Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  Patrick J Heagerty,et al.  Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation , 2006, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[25]  G. Campbell The experience in the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health with Bayesian strategies , 2005, Clinical trials.

[26]  David J Torgerson,et al.  Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  Ethan A Halm,et al.  Is Volume Related to Outcome in Health Care? A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique of the Literature , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[28]  S. Hollis,et al.  What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials , 1999, BMJ.

[29]  Milton Packer,et al.  A device is not a drug. , 2003, Journal of cardiac failure.

[30]  T. Gross,et al.  Estimates of medical device--associated adverse events from emergency departments. , 2004, American journal of preventive medicine.

[31]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  Eric L Eisenstein,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of coronary stents in elderly persons: results from 262,700 Medicare patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[33]  D. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't , 1996, BMJ.

[34]  K. Rosenfield,et al.  Clinical competence statement on carotid stenting: Training and credentialing for carotid stenting—Multispecialty consensus recommendations , 2005 .