From Registry to Reality: Opportunities to Enhance Post-market Surveillance of High-Risk Medical Devices; Comment on “Quality and Utility of European Cardiovascular and Orthopaedic Registries for the Regulatory Evaluation of Medical Device Safety and Performance Across the Implant Lifecycle: A Systematic Review”

Articles in Press

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

Abstract

Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Device Regulation maintain the authority to require post-market surveillance for novel, high-risk medical devices. Yet, the current post-market surveillance system has several limitations. In their systematic review, Hoogervorst and colleagues highlight opportunities for improvement in the European medical device registries for the cardiovascular and orthopedic fields by standardised reporting of structural and methodological characteristics. Currently, there is heterogeneity in the governance, data collection, data reporting, and auditing of post-market surveillance registries, which limits their utility. Innovation in post-market surveillance mechanisms should include developing consensus around standardized safety outcomes by health condition, using artificial intelligence to identify patterns of harm in large or unstructured databases, continuing to invest in active surveillance networks to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk medical devices, and educating physicians and care providers around adverse event reporting mechanisms. More resources and prioritization of post-market surveillance globally is needed to prioritize patient safety.

Keywords

References

  1. Hoogervorst LA, Geurkink TH, Lubbeke A, et al. Quality and utility of European cardiovascular and orthopaedic registries for the regulatory evaluation of medical device safety and performance across the implant lifecycle: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7648. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7648
  2. U.S. House of Representatives. Medical Device Guardians Act of 2016. H.R. 5404, 114th Congress (2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5404/titles. Accessed October 25, 2025.
  3. Donahoe GF. Estimates of Medical Device Spending in the United States. Advanced Medical Technology Association. https://www.advamed.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Estimates-Medical-Device-Spending-United-States-Report-2021.pdf. Published June 2021. Accessed October 23, 2025.
  4. Garber AM. Modernizing device regulation. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1161-1163. doi:1056/NEJMp1000447
  5. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Post-Market Surveillance, Vigilance and Market Surveillance. Article 83. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/oj/eng. Accessed August 8, 2025.
  6. Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. FDA Regulation and approval of medical devices: 1976-2020. JAMA. 2021;326(5):420-432. doi:1001/jama.2021.11171
  7. Salazar JW, Redberg RF. Leading the call for reform of medical device safety surveillance. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(2):179-180. doi:1001/jamainternmed.2019.5170
  8. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009;302(24):2679-2685. doi:1001/jama.2009.1899
  9. Institute of Medicine (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 501(k) Clearance Process., Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice., ebrary Inc. Medical devices and the public's health the FDA 510(k) clearance process at 35 years. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
  10. Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS. How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(7):e1001276. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1001276
  11. Food and Drug Administration. Mandatory reporting requirements: manufacturers, importers and device user facilities. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/postmarket-requirements-devices/mandatory-reporting-requirements-manufacturers-importers-and-device-user-facilities. Accessed August 4, 2025.
  12. Resnic FS, Normand SL. Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices--filling in the gaps. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):875-877. doi:1056/NEJMp1114865
  13. Everhart AO, Karaca-Mandic P, Redberg RF, Ross JS, Dhruva SS. Late adverse event reporting from medical device manufacturers to the US Food and Drug Administration: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2025;388:e081518. doi:1136/bmj-2024-081518
  14. Feldman WB, Kesselheim AS. Active postmarketing device surveillance as a legislative priority. BMJ. 2025;388:r484. doi:1136/bmj.r484
  15. US Department of Health and Human Services. Adverse event reporting for medical devices. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00110.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2025.
  16. Food and Drug Administration. FDA’s Sentinel Initiative. https://www.fda.gov/safety/fdas-sentinel-initiative. Accessed August 4, 2025.
  17. US Government Accountability Office. Medical Devices: FDA has begun building an active postmarket surveillance system. GAO-24-106699. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106699. Published August 15, 2024. Accessed August 4, 2025.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 29 November 2025

Files

History

  • Received Date: 14 September 2025
  • Revised Date: 28 October 2025
  • Accepted Date: 12 November 2025
  • First Published Date: 29 November 2025
  • Published Date: 29 November 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics