CARDIAC IMPLANT REGISTRIES 2006-2016- SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF GLOBAL PRACTICES
Author(s)
Kolominsky-Rabas PL1, Zhang S2, Gaiser S3
1Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg; National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMN’, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, 2Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg; National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMN’, Erlangen, Germany, 3St Jude Medical, Zaventem, Belgium
OBJECTIVES: The importance of Cardiac Implant Registry (CIR) for ensuring a long-term follow-up in post-marked surveillance has been recognized and approved, but there is a lack of consensus standards on how to establish a CIR. The aim of this study is to investigate the structure and key elements of CIRs in the past decade (2006‒2016) and to provide recommendations on “best practice” approaches. METHODS: A systematic search on CIR was employed in line with PRISMA guidelines. The following databases were searched: the PubMed (Medline), ScienceDirect, EMBASE and the Scopus database. RESULTS: The following 82 registries were identified: 18 ICD registries, 7 CRT registries, 5 pacemaker registries, and 6 Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) registries which combined ICD, pacemaker and CRT implantation data; as well as 22 coronary stent registries and 24 TAVI registries. While 71 national or local registries are from a single country, 44 are from European countries, and 9 are located in USA. The following criteria have been summarized from the identified registries, including: registry working group, ethic issues, transparency, research objective, inclusion criteria, compulsory participation, endpoint, sample size, data collection methods, data entry, data validation and statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For HTA as well as regulatory decision making, medical device registries provide a “real-world” picture for patients, physicians, manufacturers, payers, decision-makers and other stakeholders. CIRs are important for regulatory decisions concerning the safety and approval issues of medical devices; for payers CIRs provide evidence on the medical device benefits and drive the decision as to whether the product should be reimbursed or not; for hospitals data from CIRs are important for sound procurement decisions, and CIRs also help patients and their physicians to reach a joint decision on which of the products is the most appropriate. However, many current CIRs are still lacking standards to inform on patient safety and ensure transparency.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2018-11, ISPOR Europe 2018, Barcelona, Spain
Value in Health, Vol. 21, S3 (October 2018)
Code
PMD137
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Pricing Policy & Schemes, Registries
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders
Explore Related HEOR by Topic