Abstract
Motivation Active implantable electronic medical devices are used in different fields of medicine, in particular cardiology and neurology. Several papers have been published over the years comparing the technical performance of implants between leading manufactures. However, no such comparison has been done with respect to “Patient-Reported Outcomes” (PROs) for most implant types, despite its importance in evaluating the quality of a medical device. With the recent update of the European Union’s (EU) regulation on public procurement towards value-based medicine, it has become beneficial for manufacturers to focus more on PROs to differentiate their products in order to create a marketing leverage. Most importantly, investigating PROs can assist shared decision-making, support pharmaceutical labelling claims and influence healthcare policy and practice. Due to this the review aims to showcase the lack of PRO comparisons between implant manufacturers across different medical fields and its impact on patients and surgeons.
Methods A literature search was conducted for active and passive implant performance comparisons in the area of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs), deep brain stimulation (DBS), cochlear implants (CIs) and intraocular lenses (IOLs). The search focused on the availability of manufacturer comparisons with regards to PROs. A total of 640 papers from 2000 until 2022 were screened in detail for the search term “patient reported outcomes” for the different implant types. Next, we analyzed the results by tagging papers based on the specific topics they investigated in their study to enable a cross-comparison. We noted whether the implant manufacturers were mentioned as well as whether a manufacturer comparison was done. Studies were also evaluated based on the number of patients included.
Results A total of 38 papers were identified for ICDs, 31 for DBS, 68 for IOLs and 34 for CIs. 50% of the papers for IOL focused on PROs and 22% and 14% for CIs and DBS, whilst mentioning the manufacturers. No papers dealing with PROs could be identified for ICDs. Manufacturer comparison was not attempted by any of the reviewed papers, despite implants such as CIs and DBS having quite a significant impact on the quality of life.
Conclusions There is an urgent need for clinical studies which focus on PRO comparisons between implants of different manufacturers, to not only provide physicians and patients with critical information that informs their decision prior to implantation, but also to increase the competition between manufacturers, thus, fostering innovation. The former would allow physicians to recommend the most suitable implant for the patient. In addition, this will drive manufacturers towards PRO focused improvements.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
Previous consultancy work with e.g. MED-EL, Abbott and Cochlear
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at:
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
