Cardiac implant registries 2006-2016: a systematic review and summary of global experiences

Journal article


Publication Details

Author(s): Zhang S, Gaiser S, Kolominsky-Rabas P
Journal: BMJ Open
Publication year: 2018
Volume: 8
Journal issue: 4
ISSN: 2044-6055


Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The importance of Cardiac Implant Registry (CIR) for ensuring a long-term follow-up in postmarket surveillance has been recognised and approved, but there is 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.
SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A systematic search on CIR was employed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The following databases were searched: the PubMed (Medline), ScienceDirect and the Scopus database, EMBASE. After identifying the existing CIRs, an aggregative approach will be used to explore key elements emerging in the identified registries.
RESULTS: The following 82 registries were identified: 18 implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) registries, 7 cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) registries, 5 pacemaker registries and 6 cardiovascular implantable electronic device registries which combined ICD, pacemaker and CRT implantation data; as well as 22 coronary stent registries and 24 transcatheteraortic heart valve implantation 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 summarised from the identified registries, including: registry working group, ethic issues, transparency, research objective, inclusion criteria, compulsory participation, endpoint, sample size, data collection basement, data collection methods, data entry, data validation and statistical analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: 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 therefore approval issues of the medical device; for payers CIRs provide evidence on the medical device benefit and drive the decision whether the product should be reimbursed or not; for hospitals CIRs' data are important for sound procurement decisions, and CIRs also help patients and their physicians to joint decision-making which of the products is the most appropriate.


FAU Authors / FAU Editors

Kolominsky-Rabas, Peter Prof. Dr. med.
Medizinische Fakultät
Zhang, Shixuan
Medizinische Fakultät


Additional Organisation
Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Public Health


External institutions with authors

St. Jude Medical Coordination Center BVBA


How to cite

APA:
Zhang, S., Gaiser, S., & Kolominsky-Rabas, P. (2018). Cardiac implant registries 2006-2016: a systematic review and summary of global experiences. BMJ Open, 8(4). https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019039

MLA:
Zhang, Shixuan, Sebastian Gaiser, and Peter Kolominsky-Rabas. "Cardiac implant registries 2006-2016: a systematic review and summary of global experiences." BMJ Open 8.4 (2018).

BibTeX: 

Last updated on 2019-20-08 at 09:33