fda summary l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
FDA Summary PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
FDA Summary

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

FDA Summary - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation
FDA Summary
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. FDA Summary CardioSEAL® STARFlex™ Septal Occlusion System with Qwik Load NMT Medical P000049/S3

  2. FDA Summary • FDA Review Team • Background • Device Description • Nonclinical Evaluation • Clinical Evaluation • Panel Questions

  3. FDA Review Team • ODE - Donna Buckley John E. Stuhlmuller, M.D. • OSB - Gerry Gray, Ph.D.

  4. Background • STARFlex™ has the same design as the CardioSEAL® device except that a nitinol centering spring has been added • CardioSEAL® • PMA approved (12/01); closure of high risk VSDs • HDE approved (2/00); closure of PFO in patients with recurrent cryptogenic stroke who have failed medical therapy

  5. STARFlex™ Device Description • Occluder • Double umbrella design • Sizes: 23mm, 28mm, and 33mm • Device size : Stretched defect diameter ratio is 1.7-2.0 : 1 • Delivery Catheter • Size: 10F • Qwik Load device - used to collapse and load occluder into the delivery catheter

  6. Nonclinical Evaluation • In Vitro Testing • Biocompatibility Testing • In Vivo (Animal) Testing

  7. Clinical Evaluation

  8. Clinical Data Sets • Pivotal Cohort – STARFlex™ PFO • Non-pivotal • CardioSEAL® (PFO) • Clamshell I F/U (PFO) • STARFlex™ (non-PFO)

  9. Pivotal Cohort - PFO • Patient subset of High-Risk Registry • Open-label, single arm • No control group • Meets criteria for “Compassionate Use” • Primarily single-center study

  10. Pivotal Cohort - PFO • 49 patients • Devices placed in 49 of 49 patients attempted

  11. Patient Outcome Assessment • Effectiveness • Primary: Complete Defect Closure by Echocardiographic Assessment • Secondary: Occurrence of Potential Neurological Events after Device Placement • Safety • Adverse Events

  12. PFO - Effectiveness • Primary Efficacy determined at 6-month F/U • 44 of 49 implanted patients • Complete closure reported in 43 of 44 patients evaluated • Technical errors were reported in 9 of 49 patients • Secondary Efficacy • No strokes and 4 transient neurological events were reported

  13. PFO - Safety • Assessment at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months • Characterization of adverse events • Device related • arm fractures • Implantation related • Catheterization related

  14. PFO - Safety • Serious or moderately serious adverse events in 13 of 49 patients • Device-Related - 7 • Implantation-Related - 1 • Catheterization-Related - 5 • Arm fractures in 7 of 49 devices

  15. Panel Questions

  16. Question 1 1a. Please discuss the use of “Procedural Success” as the primary efficacy outcome measure for assessment of clinical benefit. 1b. Please discuss the use of the occurrence of potential embolic neurological events after device placement as a secondary efficacy outcome measure for assessment of clinical benefit.

  17. Question 2 2a. Please discuss the use of “Serious and Moderately Serious Adverse Events” (that were definitely, probably or possibly related to the device, implantation or catheterization procedure) as the primary safety outcome measure for assessment of clinical benefit versus risk. 2b. Please discuss whether the echocardiographic evaluation and clinical evaluation (definitions for occurrence of neurological events) allow adequate assessment of device-related clinical events.

  18. Question 2 (cont) 2c. Please discuss whether adequate information has been provided to allow assessment of the risk of recurrent cryptogenic stroke versus risk of device-related neurological event. 2d. Please discuss whether adequate information has been provided to characterize the appropriate post-device placement antiplatelet regimen (duration and single versus combination therapy) or anticoagulation regimen (duration and target INR).

  19. Question 3 3. Please comment on the lack of a pre-specified control group, pre-specified outcome measures, and pre-specified sample size.

  20. Question 4a and 4b 4a. Please clarify if additional analyses on the current data set could be performed to provide adequate information to support safety and effectiveness. 4b. Please clarify if the collection of additional data using the current patient selection criteria and outcome measures would be adequate to support safety and effectiveness.

  21. Question 4c 4c. Alternatively, if you believe that a new trial is required, please address the following clinical trial design questions: i. Given our current understanding of the causal relationship of the presence of PFO and stroke (presumed paradoxical embolism), please discuss whether a randomized trial is necessary to evaluate safety and effectiveness. If so, 1. Can a randomized trial be completed at this time? 2. What is an appropriate control group?

  22. Question 4c (cont) ii. Please discuss whether adequate trials can be designed with historical controls or objective performance criteria. iii. Based on the type of study design proposed, please address the following issues: 1. Please characterize the appropriate patient population for study enrollment. 2. Please discuss the appropriate primary and s secondary outcome measures for evaluation of effectiveness and safety. As part of this discussion, please comment on the use of clinical versus surrogate endpoints.

  23. Question 4c (cont) 3. Please discuss the appropriate duration of patient follow-up. 4. Please comment on what would be a clinically relevant sample size. 5. Please discuss the criteria for a successful trial. 6. Please comment on whether adjunctive antithrombotic medication regimens should be left to the operator or prospectively outlined in the protocol.

  24. Question 5 5. Please discuss any improvements that could be made to the training program.

  25. Question 6 6a. Please comment on the INDICATIONS FOR USE section as to whether it identifies the appropriate patient populations for treatment with this device.

  26. Question 6 (cont) 6b. Please comment on the CONTRAINDICATIONS section as to whether there are conditions under which the device should not be used because the risk of use clearly outweighs any possible benefit.

  27. Question 6 (cont) 6c. Please comment on the WARNING/PRECAUTIONS section as to whether it adequately describes how the device should be used to maximize benefits and minimize adverse events.

  28. Question 6 (cont) 6d. Please comment on the OPERATOR’S INSTRUCTIONS as to whether it adequately describes how the device should be used to maximize benefits and minimize adverse events.

  29. Question 6 (cont) 6e. Please comment on the remainder of the device labeling as to whether it adequately describe how the device should be used to maximize benefits and minimize adverse events.

  30. Question 7 7. Based on the clinical data provided in the Panel Package, do you believe that additional follow-up data or post market studies are necessary to evaluate the chronic effects of the implantation of the STARFlex™ device. If so, how long should patients be followed and what endpoints and adverse events should be measured?