Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium

Background and The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous Aims approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE -marking) between 2000 and 2021. Methods Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high -risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. Results At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non -randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre -registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non -randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P <.001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE -mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE -mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE -mark approval (P<.001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE -mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21. Conclusions The quantity and quality of publicly ava lable data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categor es of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non -randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE -mark certification.