Observational versus randomized medical device testing before and after market approval-The atherectomy-versus-angioplasty controversy

2Citations
Citations of this article
4Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was developed in the late 1970s as a nonsurgical alternative for revascularization of atherosclerotic coronary arteries. It gained widespread acceptance without a controlled trial. Introduced in 1986, directional coronary atherectomy was the first of other recently developed coronary devices that sought to improve on the results of angioplasty. It was approved in 1990 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of observational data. Its use expanded rapidly, reaching over 35,000 procedures in 1992, accounting for more than 10% of all interventions. After premarket approval, two major randomized trials tested the hypothesis that atherectomy would be superior to angioplasty. Their results raised a cautionary flag and stood in contrast to projections made from prior observational data. It is concluded that randomized controlled trials validate claims of relative efficacy and safety of competing medical technologies, a lesson reflected in recent changes in policy at the FDA. © 1995.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Omoigui, N. A., & Topol, E. J. (1995). Observational versus randomized medical device testing before and after market approval-The atherectomy-versus-angioplasty controversy. Controlled Clinical Trials, 16(3), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00035-F

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free