Do Cardiovascular Implants Get Enough Testing?
A paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association points out that many implantable cardiovascular devices appear to get FDA premarket approval without what the authors consider to be sufficient published test results. Cynthia Graber reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
We like to think that medical equipment implanted in our bodies undergoes rigorous testing before it’s put inside a person. That’s not always the case, at least for cardiovascular devices. That’s according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Researchers evaluated the FDA premarket approval process for 78 high-risk devices, such as pacemakers, stents and implanted defibrillators. They had assumed that these types of devices should and would be subject to random double-blinded studies with controls over an appropriate time-frame to investigate safety and efficacy.
But for 51 of the devices—65 percent—approval was based on a single study. Only 27 percent of studies were randomized, and only 14 percent were blinded. Only half of the devices were compared with controls.
The authors recognize the tension between sufficient testing and the need to get new drugs and devices to the public. But, they say, “The bar for evidence of benefit should be higher for devices because they are implanted and cannot simply be discontinued, as drugs can. In addition, although devices can be lifesaving, they also have great potential for risk and adverse events.”
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
—Cynthia Graber
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
