Premarket assessment of devices for treatment of critical limb ischemia: The role of Objective Performance Criteria and Goals

被引:18
作者
Geraghty, Patrick J. [1 ]
Matsumura, Jon S. [2 ]
Conte, Michael S. [3 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Vasc Surg Sect, St Louis, MO 63130 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Div Vasc Surg, Madison, WI USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Div Vasc & Endovasc Surg, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
CLINICAL-TRIAL DESIGN; CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES; FDA PERSPECTIVE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvs.2009.10.041
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Medical devices are cleared for marketing approval through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Unique statutory requirements, Such as the "least burdensome mandate," have allowed the FDA to employ non-concurrent controls in its evaluation of prospective therapies. The use of Objective performance Criteria and Goals (OPC and OPG) for the premarket evaluation of cardiovascular devices has become established as an alternative to randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). These single-armed comparisons may facilitate rapid entry of novel devices to the market. Unlike RCTs, they do not establish superiority or non-inferiority of the examined therapy, and study populations must be carefully inspected to ensure validity of comparisons to historical controls. (J Vase Surg 2009;50:1459-61.)
引用
收藏
页码:1459 / 1461
页数:3
相关论文
共 3 条
[1]   FDA perspective on clinical trial design for cardiovascular devices [J].
Chen, Eric ;
Sapirstein, Wolf ;
Ahn, Chul ;
Swain, Julie ;
Zuckerman, Bram .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2006, 82 (03) :773-775
[2]   FDA perspective on clinical trial design for femoropopliteal stent correction of peripheral vascular insufficiency cardiovascular devices - Editorial comment [J].
Goode, Jennifer ;
Sapirstein, Wolf ;
Zuckerman, Bram .
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2007, 69 (06) :920-921
[3]   Prosthetic heart valves: Objective performance criteria versus randomized clinical trial [J].
Grunkemeier, Gary L. ;
Jin, Ruyun ;
Starr, Albert .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2006, 82 (03) :776-780