Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25962074›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Recalls of cardiac implants in the last decade: what lessons can we learn?

Shixuan Zhang, Christine Kriza, Sandra Schaller, Peter L Kolominsky-Rabas, National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies Medical Valley EMN

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Patient Perceptions and Quality of Life in Pacemaker Recipients.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shixuan ZhangInterdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany.
Christine KrizaInterdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany; National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies "Medical Valley EMN", Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany.
Sandra SchallerInterdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany.
Peter L Kolominsky-RabasInterdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany; National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies "Medical Valley EMN", Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany.
National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies Medical Valley EMN
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to an ageing population and demographic changes worldwide, a higher prevalence of heart disease is forecasted, which causes an even higher demand for cardiac implants in future. The increasing high incidence of clinical adverse events attributed especially to high-risk medical devices has led an advocated change from many stakeholders. This holds especially true for devices like cardiac implants, with their high-risk nature and high complication rates associated with considerable mortality, due to their frequent use in older populations with frequent co-morbidities. To ensure patients' safety, the objective of this study is to analyze different cardiac implants recall reasons and different recall systems, based on an overview of the recalls of cardiac implant medical devices in the last decade. On the basis of the results from this structured analysis, this study provides recommendations on how to avoid such recalls from a manufacturer perspective, as well as how to timely react to an adverse event from a post-surveillance system perspective. METHODS AND

findingsA systematic search of cardiac implant recalls information has been performed in the PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus databases, as well as data sources in regulatory authorities from 193 UN Member States. Data has been extracted for the years 2004-2014 with the following criteria applied: cardiac implant medical device recalls and reasons for recall, associated harm or risk to patients. From the data sources described above, eleven regulatory authorities and 103 recall reports have been included in this study. The largest cardiac implant categories include ICDs 40.8%, pacemakers 14.5% and stents 14.5%. Regarding the recall reasons, the majority of reports were related to device battery problems (33.0%) and incorrect therapy delivery (31.1%). From a total of 103 recall reports, five reported death and serious injuries. Our review highlights weaknesses in the current cardiac implant recall system, including data reporting and management issues and provides recommendations for the improvement of safety information and management.

conclusionDue to the mortality associated with the nature of cardiac implants, the traceability and transparency of safety hazards information is crucial. By a structured analysis of recall reasons and their efficient management, important knowledge is gained to inform an effective safety-reporting system for monitoring the safety of cardiac implanted patients, ideally by building up cardiac implant registries worldwide in the future.

Indexed as

Heart, ArtificialHeart Valve ProsthesisMedical Device RecallsProsthesis FailureHumansPatient Safety

Identifiers

PMID25962074
PMCPMC4427435
OpenAlexW231445641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.