START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,339,602 people care about Health Policy

How Does the FDA Monitor Your Medical Implants? It Doesn’t, Really

How Does the FDA Monitor Your Medical Implants? It Doesn’t, Really
  • 1 of 2

 

Written by Lena Groeger

Each prescription drug you take has a unique code that the government can use to track problems. But artificial hips and pacemakers? They are implanted without such government identification, as are many other medical devices. In fact, the FDA doesn’t know how many devices are implanted into patients each year – it simply doesn’t track that data.

Many manufacturers imprint a serial number on their devices. But those numbers are not standardized and aggregated in such a way that the government can easily track them. And the past decade has seen numerous high profile cases of malfunctioning medical devices, which have led to injury or even death. Critics say the FDA’s minimal monitoring of devices contributes to these problems.

“If you’re lucky, you might find a sticker on the operating room note that was left over from the product,” said Richard Platt, who runs the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute. Otherwise, there is little way of knowing what device was used.

Right now, the FDA depends mostly on voluntary reports from doctors, patients, manufacturers and hospitals to notify them of problems with devices already on the market. The agency does have some power to require manufacturers to conduct further studies or track a particular device once it is sold. But many devices don’t get that level of surveillance.

“It’s much like a patchwork of streams of information getting to the FDA,” said cardiologist Frederic Resnic of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who has worked with the FDA on medical device safety monitoring. “The FDA is relying on anecdotal and very variable information about the safety of medical devices.”

If manufacturers get word from a doctor or hospital about a death or injury that occurred as a result of their product, they are legally obligated to investigate the event and report it to the FDA. But the process isn’t straightforward, as has become clear in the recent controversy over the malfunctioning St. Jude’s Riata defibrillator leads (wires that connect a defibrillator to the heart). The FDA said an individual doctor’s report helped alert them to the problem, but it was months before the device was recalled.

According to attorney William Vodra, a regulatory law expert and member of the Institute of Medicine panel that published a report on medical device safety last year, the number of doctors who actually contact manufacturers is small.

And after being notified of patient harm, manufacturers can minimize their own responsibility if they point the blame elsewhere, said health policy expert Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families.

For example, if someone dies from complications in a surgery to remove an implant, the manufacturer may argue that it was the surgery – not the implant – that killed the patient.

“You have a system that is not rigorous, the standards are not always understood, and they are interpreted differently by different people,” Zuckerman said.

  • 1 of 2

Read more: , , , , , ,

Photo from Thinkstock

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

8 comments

+ add your own
4:17PM PDT on May 10, 2012

Thank you for the article...

3:29PM PDT on May 10, 2012

that figures, our money wasted again.

1:28PM PDT on May 10, 2012

it is about the money money

1:12PM PDT on May 10, 2012

It is true that more oversight is needed, however, as a person whose job it is to monitor patients with devices, I can tell you that patients who feel well will not return to the physician.

All medical devices are designed with a specific work-life. Patients are specifically TOLD what that work-life is prior to surgery. They in fact sign papers that specifically spell out the risks of implantation and the expected life of the device within their bodies.

Unfortunately most patients work under the 'if it aint broke' hypothesis. I cannot even count how many times I've called a patient to say, "It's been five years and that device is getting old. The Doc would like to see you," and had the patient respond, "Well I feel fine. I'll call if I have any problems."

I must document that the patient refused to be seen, and this often negates any warrantee provision on the device. Even knowing this, patients often decline surveillance.

1:00PM PDT on May 10, 2012

no big surprise.

12:54PM PDT on May 10, 2012

With all the implants being done I think the devices should be thoroughly checked out so that the patients will not incur more problems.

5:28PM PDT on May 9, 2012

Thanks for this great article.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

It is disgusting that the greed of man in destroying everything and everyone in its path! So many extinct…

Kids should be able to record any bullying incidents because THEY are the victims, not the bullies! Schools…

I believe we don't have the right to take any life, but a year in prison for each one murdered seems…

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.