P963Coronary orbital atherectomy manufacturers and user facility device experience (MAUDE) database: a 5-year analysis of real-world complications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Coronary Orbital Atherectomy System was approved by the United States FDA (food and Drug Administration) on October 21st, 2013. The initial safety data were published in the ORBIT I trial. Purpose Evaluation of the reported real-life complications related to utilization of orbital coronary atherectomy system since its approval in the United States using the online FDA database. Methods The Manufacturer and User facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for all complication reports involving the orbital atherectomy (OA) “Diamondback 360 coronary orbital atherectomy system” from 1/1/2013 through 12/31/2018. All reports were searched for complications; mortality, perforation, dissections, device fragmentation, and the need for surgical intervention among reported procedures. Duplicate entries and data with no reporting on final procedure outcome were excluded. Results Over the allocated interval519 reports were identified. Seven reports were excluded (according to exclusion criteria). Over the period of slightly more than five years, coronary perforation was the most commonly reported complication mounting to 44.14% of all the reports (226 reports). Device fragmentation was reported in 18.94% of the reports (97 reports). Surgery was needed to retrieve device fragments in 13 cases (13.4% of all device fragmentation reports). Coronary dissection represented 16.21% of the reports (83 reports) and total surgical interventions were needed in 14.25% of the cases (73 reports). Finally, total reported deaths were 121 cases (23.63% of the total reports). Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Number of reported complications 4 28 46 81 113 247 Percentage of reported complications Discussion The current analysis, representing data from real world reported complications to the FDA over a period of 5 years, shows that the most common reported complication during coronary orbital atherectomy was coronary perforations, followed by device breakings and fragmentation (which necessitated surgical intervention in almost 13.4% of those device fragmentation cases reported). It is hard to compare these data with published safety trials since the FDA database is involved in reporting complications and not total number of procedures. However the most striking complication involved device fragmentation, which was not seen or reported among the pivotal trials evaluating device safety. The current analysis may shed some light on a non reported complication among patients undergoing orbital atherectomy which might represent a gap between the device performance in real world as opposed to a well-designed study world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».