Suppr超能文献

评估妇产科食品和药物管理局设备批准和召回。

Assessment of Obstetric and Gynecologic Food and Drug Administration Device Approvals and Recalls.

机构信息

Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

出版信息

J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Nov-Dec;25(7):1281-1288. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.029. Epub 2018 Apr 10.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the recall rates of obstetric and gynecologic devices approved via the Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) and premarket approval (PMA) processes.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Clinical settings in the United States that use obstetric and gynecologic devices.

SUBJECTS

Two thousand two hundred forty-nine Food and Drug Administration-approved obstetric and gynecologic devices that were recalled between November 1, 2002, and December 31, 2017.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The class of device, class of recall, date of recall, and original approval process were obtained for each device. These were compared against the total number of approved devices during this time period in the PMA and 510(k) processes. Recall proportions of each process were calculated and compared. A total of 685 devices were approved via the PMA process, and 1564 devices were approved via the 510(k) process in the observed time period. Of these, 1.17% of the PMA-approved devices and 15.98% of the 510(k)-approved devices were recalled (p < .001). There was an overall increase in absolute device recall numbers over time in the 510(k) process, whereas the number of recalls in the PMA process did not change with time.

CONCLUSION

The recall event rate for the 510(k) approval process is 13.6 times the rate for the PMA approval process for obstetric and gynecologic devices. Analysis of the results suggests improper device risk classification, inappropriate assignment of the approval process, increased device malfunctions, recalls by the 510(k) process and, therefore, increased risk to patients by these devices. This warrants a call for improvement and increased scrutiny in the 510(k) approval process for devices used in obstetrics and gynecology.

摘要

研究目的

评估和比较通过美国食品和药物管理局 510(k)和上市前批准(PMA)流程批准的妇产科设备的召回率。

设计

回顾性观察性研究(加拿大任务组分类 II-2)。

设置

在美国使用妇产科设备的临床环境中。

受试者

2249 种在 2002 年 11 月 1 日至 2017 年 12 月 31 日期间被召回的经美国食品和药物管理局批准的妇产科设备。

测量和主要结果

为每个设备获取设备类别、召回类别、召回日期和原始批准流程。将这些与在此期间 PMA 和 510(k)流程中批准的总设备数量进行比较。计算并比较每个流程的召回比例。在观察期间,共有 685 种设备通过 PMA 流程获得批准,1564 种设备通过 510(k)流程获得批准。其中,PMA 批准设备的召回率为 1.17%,510(k)批准设备的召回率为 15.98%(p<0.001)。随着时间的推移,510(k) 流程中的设备召回绝对数量总体呈上升趋势,而 PMA 流程中的召回数量并未随时间变化。

结论

510(k) 批准流程的召回事件率是妇产科设备 PMA 批准流程的 13.6 倍。结果分析表明设备风险分类不当、批准流程分配不当、设备故障增加、510(k) 流程召回以及因此患者面临这些设备的风险增加。这需要呼吁改进 510(k) 批准流程,并加强对妇产科设备的审查。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验