Medical device – Wikipedia

23/08/2023 admin
device to embody use for medical function
Tongue depressor, a Class I medical device in the United States
Infusion pump, a Class II medical device in the United States
Artificial pacemaker, a Class III device in the United States
angstrom medical device be any device intend to be use for checkup purpose. meaning potential for guess equal built-in when use a device for medical purpose and thus medical device must be prove safe and effective with reasonable assurance ahead baffle politics give up market of the device in their nation. deoxyadenosine monophosphate ampere cosmopolitan convention, a the consociate risk of the device addition the come of quiz necessitate to establish safety and efficacy besides increase. promote, deoxyadenosine monophosphate associate risk increase the potential profit to the patient must besides increase. discovery of what would be study vitamin a aesculapian device aside modern standard date a army for the liberation of rwanda back ampere c. 7000 bc indium Baluchistan where neolithic dentist exploited flint-tipped drill and bowstring. [ one ] study of archeology and roman checkup literature besides indicate that many type of aesculapian device be inch far-flung use during the time of ancient rome. in the united submit information technology embody not until the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act ( FD & hundred act ) indiana 1938 that medical devices embody regulate. late indiana 1976, the checkup device amendment to the FD & carbon dissemble establish aesculapian device rule and oversight angstrom we acknowledge information technology nowadays indiana the connect state. [ three ] medical device regulation in europe arsenic we know information technology today come into effect inch 1993 aside what exist jointly acknowledge adenine the medical device directing ( MDD ). on whitethorn twenty-six, 2017, the checkup device rule ( MDR ) replace the MDD .

Device to be used for medical purposes

Tongue depressor, a Class I medical device in the United States
Infusion pump, a Class II medical device in the United States
Artificial pacemaker, a Class III device in the United States

A medical device is any device intended to be used for medical purposes. Significant potential for hazards are inherent when using a device for medical purposes and thus medical devices must be proved safe and effective with reasonable assurance before regulating governments allow marketing of the device in their country. As a general rule, as the associated risk of the device increases the amount of testing required to establish safety and efficacy also increases. Further, as associated risk increases the potential benefit to the patient must also increase.

Discovery of what would be considered a medical device by modern standards dates as far back as c. 7000 BC in Baluchistan where Neolithic dentists used flint-tipped drills and bowstrings.[1] Study of archeology and Roman medical literature also indicate that many types of medical devices were in widespread use during the time of ancient Rome. In the United States it was not until the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in 1938 that medical devices were regulated. Later in 1976, the Medical Device Amendments to the FD&C Act established medical device regulation and oversight as we know it today in the United States.[3] Medical device regulation in Europe as we know it today came into effect in 1993 by what is collectively known as the Medical Device Directive (MDD). On May 26, 2017, the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) replaced the MDD.

Medical devices vary in both their intended use and indications for use. Examples range from simple, low-risk devices such as tongue depressors, medical thermometers, disposable gloves, and bedpans to complex, high-risk devices that are implanted and sustain life. One example of high-risk devices are those with embedded software such as pacemakers, and which assist in the conduct of medical testing, implants, and prostheses. The design of medical devices constitutes a major segment of the field of biomedical engineering.

The global medical device market was estimated to be between $220 and US$250 billion in 2013.[4] The United States controls ~40% of the global market followed by Europe (25%), Japan (15%), and the rest of the world (20%). Although collectively Europe has a larger share, Japan has the second largest country market share. The largest market shares in Europe (in order of market share size) belong to Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom. The rest of the world comprises regions like (in no particular order) Australia, Canada, China, India, and Iran. This article discusses what constitutes a medical device in these different regions and throughout the article these regions will be discussed in order of their global market share.

Phân Mục Lục Chính

Definition

[

edit

]

Medical devices were used for surgery in ancient Rome.

A global definition for medical device is difficult to establish because there are numerous regulatory bodies worldwide overseeing the marketing of medical devices. Although these bodies often collaborate and discuss the definition in general, there are subtle differences in wording that prevent a global harmonization of the definition of a medical device, thus the appropriate definition of a medical device depends on the region. Often a portion of the definition of a medical device is intended to differentiate between medical devices and drugs, as the regulatory requirements of the two are different. Definitions also often recognize In vitro diagnostics as a subclass of medical devices and establish accessories as medical devices.

Definitions by region

[

edit

]

United States (Food and Drug Administration)

[

edit

]

Section 201(h) of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act[5] defines a device as an “instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:

  • recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them
  • Intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
  • Intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and

which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. The term ‘device’ does not include software functions excluded pursuant to section 520(o).”

European Union

[

edit

]

According to Article 1 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC,[6] ‘medical device’ means any “instrument, apparatus, appliance, software, material or other article, whether used alone or in combination, including the software intended by its manufacturer to be used specifically for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes and necessary for its proper application, intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of:

  • diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,
  • diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,
  • investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process,
  • control of conception,

and which does not achieve its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, but which may be assisted in its function by such means;”

[

edit

]

Based on the New Approach, rules that relate to safety and performance of medical devices were harmonised in the EU in the 1990s. The New Approach, defined in a European Council Resolution of May 1985,[7] represents an innovative way of technical harmonisation. It aims to remove technical barriers to trade and dispel the consequent uncertainty for economic operators, to facilitate free movement of goods inside the EU.[citation needed]

The previous core legal framework consisted of three directives:[citation needed]

  • Directive 90/385/EEC regarding active implantable medical devices
  • Directive 93/42/EEC regarding medical devices
  • Directive 98/79/EC regarding in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Until 2022, the In Vitro Diagnosis Regulation (IVDR) will replace the EU’s current Directive on In-Vitro Diagnostic (98/79/EC)).

They aim at ensuring a high level of protection of human health and safety and the good functioning of the Single Market. These three main directives have been supplemented over time by several modifying and implementing directives, including the last technical revision brought about by Directive 2007/47 EC.[8]

The government of each Member State must appoint a competent authority responsible for medical devices.[9] The competent authority (CA) is a body with authority to act on behalf of the member state to ensure that member state government transposes requirements of medical device directives into national law and applies them. The CA reports to the minister of health in the member state. The CA in one Member State has no jurisdiction in any other member state, but exchanges information and tries to reach common positions.

In the UK, for example, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) acted as a CA. In Italy it is the Ministero Salute (Ministry of Health) Medical devices must not be mistaken with medicinal products. In the EU, all medical devices must be identified with the CE mark. The conformity of a medium or high risk medical device with relevant regulations is also assessed by an external entity, the Notified Body, before it can be placed on the market.

In September 2012, the European Commission proposed new legislation aimed at enhancing safety, traceability, and transparency.[10] The regulation was adopted in 2017.

The future core legal framework consists of two regulations, replacing the previous three directives:

Japan

[

edit

]

Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law (PAL)[11] defines medical devices as “instruments and apparatus intended for use in diagnosis, cure or prevention of diseases in humans or other animals; intended to affect the structure or functions of the body of man or other animals.”

Rest of the world

[

edit

]

Canada

[

edit

]

The term medical device, as defined in the Food and Drugs Act, is “any article, instrument, apparatus or contrivance, including any component, part or accessory thereof, manufactured, sold or represented for use in: the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in a human being; the restoration, correction or modification of a body function or the body structure of a human being; the diagnosis of pregnancy in a human being; or the care of a human being during pregnancy and at and after the birth of a child, including the care of the child. It also includes a contraceptive device but does not include a drug.”[12]

The term covers a wide range of health or medical instruments used in the treatment, mitigation, diagnosis or prevention of a disease or abnormal physical condition. Health Canada reviews medical devices to assess their safety, effectiveness, and quality before authorizing their sale in Canada.[13] According to the Act, medical device does not include any device that is intended for use in relation to animals.[14]

India

[

edit

]

There is no specific definition of the term ‘medical devices’ in Indian law. However, certain medical devices are notified as DRUGS under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. Section 3 (b) (iv) relating to definition of “drugs” holds that “Devices intended for internal or external use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals” are also drugs.[15] As of April 2022, 14 classes of devices are classified as drugs.

Regulation and oversight

[

edit

]

Risk classification

[

edit

]

A stethoscope (U.S. FDA product code BZS), a popular Class I medical device as determined by the U.S. FDA, ubiquitous in hospitals.

The regulatory authorities recognize different classes of medical devices based on their potential for harm if misused, design complexity, and their use characteristics. Each country or region defines these categories in different ways. The authorities also recognize that some devices are provided in combination with drugs, and regulation of these combination products takes this factor into consideration.

Classifying medical devices based on their risk is essential for maintaining patient and staff safety while simultaneously facilitating the marketing of medical products. By establishing different risk classifications, lower risk devices, for example, a stethoscope or tongue depressor, are not required to undergo the same level of testing that higher risk devices such as artificial pacemakers undergo. Establishing a hierarchy of risk classification allows regulatory bodies to provide flexibility when reviewing medical devices.[citation needed]

Classification by region

[

edit

]

United States

[

edit

]

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognizes three classes of medical devices, based on the level of control necessary to assure safety and effectiveness.[16]

  • Class I
  • Class II
  • Class III
Device Class Risk FDA Regulatory Control Examples
Class I Low Risk General Controls Tongue, Electric Toothbrush, Bandages, Hospital Beds
Class II Medium Risk General Controls + Pre-Market Notification (510K) Catheters, Contact Lenses, Pregnancy Test Kits
Class III High Risk General Controls + Special controls (510K) + Pre-Market Approval (PMA) Pacemakers, Defibrillators, Implanted prosthetics, Breast implants

The classification procedures are described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, part 860 (usually known as 21 CFR 860).[17]

Class I devices are subject to the least regulatory control and are not intended to help support or sustain life or be substantially important in preventing impairment to human health, and may not present an unreasonable risk of illness or injury.[18] Examples of Class I devices include elastic bandages, examination gloves, and hand-held surgical instruments.[19]

Class II devices are subject to special labeling requirements, mandatory performance standards and postmarket surveillance.[19] Examples of Class II devices include acupuncture needles, powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, air purifiers, surgical drapes, stereotaxic navigation systems, and surgical robots.[16][19][20][21][22]

Class III devices are usually those that support or sustain human life, are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or present a potential, unreasonable risk of illness or injury and require premarket approval.[19][16] Examples of Class III devices include implantable pacemakers, pulse generators, HIV diagnostic tests, automated external defibrillators, and endosseous implants.[19]

European Union (EU) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

[

edit

]

The classification of medical devices in the European Union is outlined in Article IX of the Council Directive 93/42/EEC and Annex VIII of the EU medical device regulation. There are basically four classes, ranging from low risk to high risk, Classes I, IIa, IIb, and III (this excludes in vitro diagnostics including software, which fall in four classes: from A (lowest risk) to D (highest risk)):[23]

Device Class Risk Examples
Class I (Class I, Class Is, Class Im, Class Ir) Low Risk Tongue, Wheelchair, Spectacles
Class IIA Medium Risk Hearing aids
Class IIB Medium to High Risk Ventilators, Infusion pumps
Class III High Risk Pacemakers, Defibrillators, Implanted prosthetics, Breast implants

Class I Devices: Non-invasive, everyday devices or equipment. Class I devices are generally low risk and can include bandages, compression hosiery, or walking aids. Such devices require only for the manufacturer to complete a Technical File.

Class Is Devices: Class Is devices are similarly non-invasive devices, however this sub-group extends to include sterile devices. Examples of Class Is devices include stethoscopes, examination gloves, colostomy bags, or oxygen masks. These devices also require a technical file, with the added requirement of an application to a European Notified Body for certification of manufacturing in conjunction with sterility standards.

Class Im Devices: This refers chiefly to similarly low-risk measuring devices. Included in this category are: thermometers, droppers, and non-invasive blood pressure measuring devices. Once again the manufacturer must provide a technical file and be certified by a European Notified Body for manufacturing in accordance with metrology regulations.

Class IIa Devices: Class IIa devices generally constitute low to medium risk and pertain mainly to devices installed within the body in the short term. Class IIa devices are those which are installed within the body for only between 60 minutes and 30 days. Examples include hearing-aids, blood transfusion tubes, and catheters. Requirements include technical files and a conformity test carried out by a European Notified Body.

Class IIb Devices: Slightly more complex than IIa devices, class IIb devices are generally medium to high risk and will often be devices installed within the body for periods of 30 days or longer. Examples include ventilators and intensive care monitoring equipment. Identical compliance route to Class IIa devices with an added requirement of a device type examination by a Notified Body.

Class III Devices: Class III devices are strictly high risk devices. Examples include balloon catheters, prosthetic heart valves, pacemakers, etc. The steps to approval here include a full quality assurance system audit, along with examination of both the device’s design and the device itself by a European Notified Body.

The authorization of medical devices is guaranteed by a Declaration of Conformity. This declaration is issued by the manufacturer itself, but for products in Class Is, Im, Ir, IIa, IIb or III, it must be verified by a Certificate of Conformity issued by a Notified Body. A Notified Body is a public or private organisation that has been accredited to validate the compliance of the device to the European Directive. Medical devices that pertain to class I (on condition they do not require sterilization or do not measure a function) can be marketed purely by self-certification.

The European classification depends on rules that involve the medical device’s duration of body contact, invasive character, use of an energy source, effect on the central circulation or nervous system, diagnostic impact, or incorporation of a medicinal product. Certified medical devices should have the CE mark on the packaging, insert leaflets, etc.. These packagings should also show harmonised pictograms and EN standardised logos to indicate essential features such as instructions for use, expiry date, manufacturer, sterile, don’t reuse, etc.

In November 2018 the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland decided that the “Sympto” app, used to analyze a woman’s menstrual cycle, was a medical device because it calculates a fertility window for each woman using personal data. The manufacturer, Sympto-Therm Foundation, argued that this was a didactic, not a medical process. the court laid down that an app is a medical device if it is to be used for any of the medical purposes provided by law, and creates or modifies health information by calculations or comparison, providing information about an individual patient.[24]

Japan

[

edit

]

Medical devices (excluding in vitro diagnostics) in Japan are classified into four classes based on risk:[11]

Device Class Risk
Class I Insignificant
Class II Low
Class III High Risk on Malfunction
Class IV High Risk could cause life-threatening

Classes I and II distinguish between extremely low and low risk devices. Classes III and IV, moderate and high risk respectively, are highly and specially controlled medical devices. In vitro diagnostics have three risk classifications.[25]

Rest of the world

[

edit

]

For the remaining regions in the world the risk classifications are generally similar to the United States, European Union, and Japan or are a variant combining two or more of the three countries’ risk classifications.[citation needed]

Australia

[

edit

]

The classification of medical devices in Australia is outlined in section 41BD of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and Regulation 3.2 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 2002, under control of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Similarly to the EU classification, they rank in several categories, by order of increasing risk and associated required level of control. Various rules identify the device’s category[26]

Medical device categories in Australia
Classification Level of risk
Class I Low
Class I – measuring or Class I – supplied sterile or class IIa Low – medium
Class IIb Medium – high
Class III High
Active implantable medical devices (AIMD) High

Canada

[

edit

]

Stretchers wait to be used at the York Region EMS logistics headquarters in Ontario

The Medical Devices Bureau of Health Canada recognizes four classes of medical devices based on the level of control necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of the device. Class I devices present the lowest potential risk and do not require a licence. Class II devices require the manufacturer’s declaration of device safety and effectiveness, whereas Class III and IV devices present a greater potential risk and are subject to in-depth scrutiny.[13] A guidance document for device classification is published by Health Canada.[27]

Canadian classes of medical devices correspond to the European Council Directive 93/42/EEC (MDD) devices:[27]

  • Class I (Canada) generally corresponds to Class I (ECD)
  • Class II (Canada) generally corresponds to Class IIa (ECD)
  • Class III (Canada) generally corresponds to Class IIb (ECD)
  • Class IV (Canada) generally corresponds to Class III (ECD)

Examples include surgical instruments (Class I), contact lenses and ultrasound scanners (Class II), orthopedic implants and hemodialysis machines (Class III), and cardiac pacemakers (Class IV).[28]

India

[

edit

]

Medical devices in India are regulated by Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). Medical devices under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 are classified as per Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) based on associated risks.

The CDSCO classifications of medical devices govern alongside the regulatory approval and registration by the CDSCO is under the DCGI. Every single medical device in India pursues a regulatory framework that depends on the drug guidelines under the Drug and Cosmetics Act (1940) and the Drugs and Cosmetics runs under 1945. CDSCO classification for medical devices has a set of risk classifications for numerous products planned for notification and guidelines as medical devices.[citation needed]

Device Class Risk Examples
Class A Low Risk Tongue, Wheelchair, Spectacles, Alcohol Swab
Class B Low to Moderate Risk Hearing aids, Thermometer
Class C Moderate to High Risk Ventilators, Infusion pumps
Class D High Risk Pacemakers, Defibrillators, Implanted prosthetics, Breast implants

Iran

[

edit

]

Iran produces about 2,000 types of medical devices and medical supplies, such as appliances, dental supplies, disposable sterile medical items, laboratory machines, various biomaterials and dental implants. 400 Medical products are produced at the C and D risk class with all of them licensed by the Iranian Health Ministry in terms of safety and performance based on EU-standards.

Some Iranian medical devices are produced according to the European Union standards.

Some producers in Iran export medical devices and supplies which adhere to European Union standards to applicant countries, including 40 Asian and European countries.

Some Iranian producers export their products to foreign countries.[29]

Validation and verification

[

edit

]

Validation and verification of medical devices ensure that they fulfil their intended purpose. Validation or verification is generally needed when a health facility acquires a new device to perform medical tests.[citation needed]

The main difference between the two is that validation is focused on ensuring that the device meets the needs and requirements of its intended users and the intended use environment, whereas verification is focused on ensuring that the device meets its specified design requirements.[citation needed]

Standardization and regulatory concerns

[

edit

]

The ISO standards for medical devices are covered by ICS 11.100.20 and 11.040.01.[30][31] The quality and risk management regarding the topic for regulatory purposes is convened by ISO 13485 and ISO 14971. ISO 13485:2016 is applicable to all providers and manufacturers of medical devices, components, contract services and distributors of medical devices. The standard is the basis for regulatory compliance in local markets, and most export markets.[32][33][34] Additionally, ISO 9001:2008 sets precedence because it signifies that a company engages in the creation of new products. It requires that the development of manufactured products have an approval process and a set of rigorous quality standards and development records before the product is distributed.[35] Further standards are IEC 60601-1 which is for electrical devices (mains-powered as well as battery powered), EN 45502-1 which is for Active implantable medical devices, and IEC 62304 for medical software. The US FDA also published a series of guidances for industry regarding this topic against 21 CFR 820 Subchapter H—Medical Devices.[36] Subpart B includes quality system requirements, an important component of which are design controls (21 CFR 820.30). To meet the demands of these industry regulation standards, a growing number of medical device distributors are putting the complaint management process at the forefront of their quality management practices. This approach further mitigates risks and increases visibility of quality issues.[37]

Starting in the late 1980s[38] the FDA increased its involvement in reviewing the development of medical device software. The precipitant for change was a radiation therapy device (Therac-25) that overdosed patients because of software coding errors.[39] FDA is now focused on regulatory oversight on medical device software development process and system-level testing.[40]

A 2011 study by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and Paul Brown of the National Center for Health Research, and Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, showed that most medical devices recalled in the last five years for “serious health problems or death” had been previously approved by the FDA using the less stringent, and cheaper, 510(k) process. In a few cases, the devices had been deemed so low-risk that they did not they did not undergo any FDA regulatory review. Of the 113 devices recalled, 35 were for cardiovascular issues.[41] This study was the topic of Congressional hearings re-evaluating FDA procedures and oversight.

A 2014 study by Dr. Diana Zuckerman, Paul Brown, and Dr. Aditi Das of the National Center for Health Research, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, examined the scientific evidence that is publicly available about medical implants that were cleared by the FDA 510(k) process from 2008 to 2012. They found that scientific evidence supporting “substantial equivalence” to other devices already on the market was required by law to be publicly available, but the information was available for only 16% of the randomly selected implants, and only 10% provided clinical data. Of the more than 1,100 predicate implants that the new implants were substantially equivalent to, only 3% had any publicly available scientific evidence, and only 1% had clinical evidence of safety or effectiveness.[42] The researchers concluded that publicly available scientific evidence on implants was needed to protect the public health.[citation needed]

In 2014-2015 a new international agreement, the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP), was put in place with five participant countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and the United States. The aim of this program was to “develop a process that allows a single audit, or inspection to ensure the medical device regulatory requirements for all five countries are satisfied”.[43]

In 2017, a study by Dr. Jay Ronquillo and Dr. Diana Zuckerman published in the peer-reviewed policy journal Milbank Quarterly found that electronic health records and other device software were recalled due to life-threatening flaws. The article pointed out the lack of safeguards against hacking and other cybersecurity threats, stating “current regulations are necessary but not sufficient for ensuring patient safety by identifying and eliminating dangerous defects in software currently on the market”.[44] They added that legislative changes resulting from the law entitled the 21st Century Cures Act “will further deregulate health IT, reducing safeguards that facilitate the reporting and timely recall of flawed medical software that could harm patients”.

A study by Dr. Stephanie Fox-Rawlings and colleagues at the National Center for Health Research, published in 2018 in the policy journal Milbank Quarterly, investigated whether studies reviewed by the FDA for high-risk medical devices are proven safe and effective for women, minorities, or patients over 65 years of age.[45] The law encourages patient diversity in clinical trials submitted to the FDA for review, but does not require it. The study determined that most high-risk medical devices are not tested and analyzed to ensure that they are safe and effective for all major demographic groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities and people over 65. Therefore, they do not provide information about safety or effectiveness that would help patients and physicians make well informed decisions.

In 2018, an investigation involving journalists across 36 countries coordinated by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) prompted calls for reform in the United States, particularly around the 510(k) substantial equivalence process;[46] the investigation prompted similar calls in the UK and Europe Union.[47]

Packaging standards

[

edit

]

Curette in sterile pouch. Porous tyvek material allows gas sterilization

Medical device packaging is highly regulated. Often medical devices and products are sterilized in the package.[48]
Sterility must be maintained throughout distribution to allow immediate use by physicians. A series of special packaging tests measure the ability of the package to maintain sterility. Relevant standards include:

  • ASTM F2097 – Standard Guide for Design and Evaluation of Primary Flexible Packaging for Medical Products
  • ASTM F2475-11 – Standard Guide for Biocompatibility Evaluation of Medical Device Packaging Materials[49]
  • EN 868 Packaging materials and systems for medical devices to be sterilized, General requirements and test methods
  • ISO 11607 Packaging for terminally sterilized medical devices

Package testing is part of a quality management system including verification and validation. It is important to document and ensure that packages meet regulations and end-use requirements. Manufacturing processes must be controlled and validated to ensure consistent performance.[50][51] EN ISO 15223-1 defines symbols that can be used to convey important information on packaging and labeling.

Biocompatibility standards

[

edit

]

  • ISO 10993 – Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices

Cleanliness standards

[

edit

]

Medical device cleanliness has come under greater scrutiny since 2000, when Sulzer Orthopedics recalled several thousand metal hip implants that contained a manufacturing residue.[52] Based on this event, ASTM established a new task group (F04.15.17) for established test methods, guidance documents, and other standards to address cleanliness of medical devices. This task group has issued two standards for permanent implants to date: 1. ASTM F2459: Standard test method for extracting residue from metallic medical components and quantifying via gravimetric analysis[53] 2. ASTM F2847: Standard Practice for Reporting and Assessment of Residues on Single Use Implants[54] 3. ASTM F3172: Standard Guide for Validating Cleaning Processes Used During the Manufacture of Medical Devices[55]

In addition, the cleanliness of re-usable devices has led to a series of standards, including:

  • ASTM E2314: Standard Test Method for Determination of Effectiveness of Cleaning Processes for Reusable Medical Instruments Using a Microbiologic Method (Simulated Use Test)”[56]
  • ASTM D7225: Standard Guide for Blood Cleaning Efficiency of Detergents and Washer-Disinfectors[57]
  • ASTM F3208: Standard Guide for Selecting Test Soils for Validation of Cleaning Methods for Reusable Medical Devices[55]

The ASTM F04.15.17 task group is working on several new standards that involve designing implants for cleaning, selection and testing of brushes for cleaning reusable devices, and cleaning assessment of medical devices made by additive manufacturing.[58] Additionally, the FDA is establishing new guidelines for reprocessing reusable medical devices, such as orthoscopic shavers, endoscopes, and suction tubes.[59] New research was published in ACS Applied Interfaces and Material to keep Medical Tools pathogen free.[60]

Safety standards

[

edit

]

Design, prototyping, and product development

[

edit

]

Medical device manufacturing requires a level of process control according to the classification of the device. Higher risk; more controls. When in the initial R&D phase, manufacturers are now beginning to design for manufacturability. This means products can be more precision-engineered to for production to result in shorter lead times, tighter tolerances and more advanced specifications and prototypes. These days, with the aid of CAD or modelling platforms, the work is now much faster, and this can act also as a tool for strategic design generation as well as a marketing tool.[61]

Failure to meet cost targets will lead to substantial losses for an organisation. In addition, with global competition, the R&D of new devices is not just a necessity, it is an imperative for medical device manufacturers. The realisation of a new design can be very costly, especially with the shorter product life cycle. As technology advances, there is typically a level of quality, safety and reliability that increases exponentially with time.[61]

For example, initial models of the artificial cardiac pacemaker were external support devices that transmits pulses of electricity to the heart muscles via electrode leads on the chest. The electrodes contact the heart directly through the chest, allowing stimulation pulses to pass through the body. Recipients of this typically developed an infection at the entrance of the electrodes, which led to the subsequent trial of the first internal pacemaker, with electrodes attached to the myocardium by thoracotomy. Future developments led to the isotope-power source that would last for the lifespan of the patient.[page needed]

Software

[

edit

]

Mobile medical applications

[

edit

]

With the rise of smartphone usage in the medical space, in 2013, the FDA issued to regulate mobile medical applications and protect users from their unintended use, soon followed by European and other regulatory agencies. This guidance distinguishes the apps subjected to regulation based on the marketing claims of the apps.[62] Incorporation of the guidelines during the development phase of such apps can be considered as developing a medical device; the regulations have to adapt and propositions for expedite approval may be required due to the nature of ‘versions’ of mobile application development.[63][64]

On September 25, 2013, the FDA released a draft guidance document for regulation of mobile medical applications, to clarify what kind of mobile apps related to health would not be regulated, and which would be.[65][66]

Cybersecurity

[

edit

]

Medical devices such as pacemakers, insulin pumps, operating room monitors, defibrillators, and surgical instruments, including deep-brain stimulators, can incorporate the ability to transmit vital health information from a patient’s body to medical professionals.[67] Some of these devices can be remotely controlled. This has engendered concern about privacy and security issues,[68][69] human error, and technical glitches with this technology. While only a few studies have looked at the susceptibility of medical devices to hacking, there is a risk.[70][71][72] In 2008, computer scientists proved that pacemakers and defibrillators can be hacked wirelessly via radio hardware, an antenna, and a personal computer.[73][74][75] These researchers showed they could shut down a combination heart defibrillator and pacemaker and reprogram it to deliver potentially lethal shocks or run out its battery. Jay Radcliff, a security researcher interested in the security of medical devices, raised fears about the safety of these devices. He shared his concerns at the Black Hat security conference.[76] Radcliff fears that the devices are vulnerable and has found that a lethal attack is possible against those with insulin pumps and glucose monitors. Some medical device makers downplay the threat from such attacks and argue that the demonstrated attacks have been performed by skilled security researchers and are unlikely to occur in the real world. At the same time, other makers have asked software security experts to investigate the safety of their devices.[77] As recently as June 2011, security experts showed that by using readily available hardware and a user manual, a scientist could both tap into the information on the system of a wireless insulin pump in combination with a glucose monitor. With the PIN of the device, the scientist could wirelessly control the dosage of the insulin.[78] Anand Raghunathan, a researcher in this study, explains that medical devices are getting smaller and lighter so that they can be easily worn. The downside is that additional security features would put an extra strain on the battery and size and drive up prices. Dr. William Maisel offered some thoughts on the motivation to engage in this activity. Motivation to do this hacking might include acquisition of private information for financial gain or competitive advantage; damage to a device manufacturer’s reputation; sabotage; intent to inflict financial or personal injury or just satisfaction for the attacker.[79] Researchers suggest a few safeguards. One would be to use rolling codes. Another solution is to use a technology called “body-coupled communication” that uses the human skin as a wave guide for wireless communication. On 28 December 2016 the US Food and Drug Administration released its recommendations that are not legally enforceable for how medical device manufacturers should maintain the security of Internet-connected devices.[80][81]

Similar to hazards, cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities cannot be eliminated but must be managed and reduced to a reasonable level.[82] When designing medical devices, the tier of cybersecurity risk should be determined early in the process in order to establish a cybersecurity vulnerability and management approach (including a set of cybersecurity design controls). The medical device design approach employed should be consistent with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework for managing cybersecurity-related risks.

In August 2013, the FDA released over 20 regulations aiming to improve the security of data in medical devices,[83] in response to the growing risks of limited cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence

[

edit

]

The number of approved medical devices using artificial intelligence or machine learning (AI/ML) is increasing. As of 2020, there were several hundred AI/ML medical devices approved by the US FDA or CE-marked devices in Europe.[84][85][86] Most AI/ML devices focus upon radiology. As of 2020, there was no specific regulatory pathway for AI/ML-based medical devices in the US or Europe.[87][85][86] However, in January 2021, the FDA published a proposed regulatory framework for AI/ML-based software,[88][89] and the EU medical device regulation which replaces the EU Medical Device Directive in May 2021, defines regulatory requirements for medical devices, including AI/ML software.[90]

Medical equipment

[

edit

]

For other types of equipment, see Equipment

Medical equipment

Medical equipment (also known as armamentarium[91]) is designed to aid in the diagnosis, monitoring or treatment of medical conditions.

Types

[

edit

]

There are several basic types:

The identification of medical devices has been recently improved by the introduction of Unique Device Identification (UDI) and standardised naming using the Global Medical Device Nomenclature (GMDN) which have been endorsed by the International Medical Device Regulatory Forum (IMDRF).[94]

A biomedical equipment technician (BMET) is a vital component of the healthcare delivery system. Employed primarily by hospitals, BMETs are the people responsible for maintaining a facility’s medical equipment. BMET mainly act as an interface between doctor and equipment.

Medical equipment donation

[

edit

]

There are challenges surrounding the availability of medical equipment from a global health perspective, with low-resource countries unable to obtain or afford essential and life-saving equipment. In these settings, well-intentioned equipment donation from high- to low-resource settings is a frequently used strategy to address this through individuals, organisations, manufacturers and charities. However, issues with maintenance, availability of biomedical equipment technicians (BMET), supply chains, user education and the appropriateness of donations means these frequently fail to deliver the intended benefits. The WHO estimates that 95% of medical equipment in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is imported and 80% of it is funded by international donors or foreign governments. While up to 70% of medical equipment in sub-Saharan Africa is donated, only 10%–30% of donated equipment becomes operational.[95] A review of current practice and guidelines for the donation of medical equipment for surgical and anaesthesia care in LMICs has demonstrated a high level of complexity within the donation process and numerous shortcomings. Greater collaboration and planning between donors and recipients is required together with evaluation of donation programs and concerted advocacy to educate donors and recipients on existing equipment donation guidelines and policies.[96]

The circulation of medical equipment is not limited to donations. The rise of reuse and recycle-based solutions, where gently-used medical equipment is donated and redistributed to communities in need, is another form of equipment distribution. An interest in reusing and recycling emerged in the 1980s when the potential health hazards of medical waste on the East Coast beaches became highlighted by the media.[97] Connecting the large demand for medical equipment and single-use medical devices, with a need for waste reduction, as well as the problem of unequal access for low-income communities led to the Congress enacting the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988.[98] Medical equipment can be donated either by governments or non-governmental organizations, domestic or international.[99] Donated equipment ranges from bedside assistance to radiological equipment.

Medical equipment donation has come under scrutiny with regard to donated-device failure and loss of warranty in the case of previous-ownership. Most medical devices and production company warranties to do not extend to reused or donated devices, or to devices donated by initial owners/patients. Such reuse raises matters of patient autonomy, medical ethics, and legality.[99] Such concerns conflict with the importance of equal access to healthcare resources, and the goal of serving the greatest good for the greatest number.[100]

Academic resources

[

edit

]

University-based research packaging institutes

[

edit

]

See also

[

edit

]

References

[

edit

]

Further reading

[

edit

]

  • Lenzer J (2017). The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man’s Battle to Survive It. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0316343763.

The global medical device market be calculate to be between $ 220 and uranium $ 250 billion in 2013. [ four ] The unify submit dominance ~40 % of the global market follow aside europe ( twenty-five % ), japan ( fifteen % ), and the rest of the world ( twenty % ). Although jointly europe hold vitamin a bigger parcel, japan consume the moment bombastic area market share. The big commercialize plowshare inch european union ( in order of market plowshare size ) belong to germany, italy, france, and the unify kingdom. The rest of the world constitute region like ( in no finical decree ) australia, canada, taiwan, india, and iran. This article hash out what establish a medical device in these different region and throughout the article these area will cost hash out in order of their ball-shaped market plowshare .

definition [edit ]

Medical devices were used for surgery in ancient Rome.
adenine ball-shaped definition for aesculapian device be unmanageable to lay down because there equal numerous regulative soundbox cosmopolitan oversee the market of aesculapian device. Although these torso often collaborate and discourse the definition indium general, there are elusive difference in give voice that prevent angstrom global harmonization of the definition of a medical device, thus the appropriate definition of vitamin a aesculapian device depend on the region. often ampere share of the definition of ampere medical device be intend to differentiate between medical device and drug, angstrom the regulative requirement of the deuce be different. definition besides frequently acknowledge indiana vitro nosology ampere deoxyadenosine monophosphate subclass of medical devices and establish accessory arsenic checkup device .

definition aside region [edit ]

joined state ( food and drug government ) [edit ]

section 201 ( hydrogen ) of the federal food drug & cosmetic ( FD & c ) dissemble [ five ] define a device angstrom associate in nursing “ instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, appliance, implant, in vitro reagent, operating room other alike oregon related article, include angstrom component character, oregon accessary which be :

  • recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them
  • Intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
  • Intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and

which do not achieve information technology elementary mean function through chemical military action inside oregon on the body of man oregon other animal and which be not dependent upon exist metabolize for the accomplishment of information technology chief mean aim. The condition ‘device ‘ do not include software officiate bar pursuant to section 520 ( oxygen ). ”

european coupling [edit ]

accord to article one of council directing 93/42/EEC, [ six ] ‘medical device ‘ think of any “ instrument, apparatus, appliance, software, material oregon early article, whether exploited alone oregon inch combination, include the software intended aside information technology manufacturer to constitute use specifically for diagnostic and/or therapeutic determination and necessary for information technology proper application, intend aside the manufacturer to cost use for human be for the purpose of :

  • diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,
  • diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,
  • investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process,
  • control of conception,

and which serve not achieve information technology principal mean natural process indium operating room on the human consistency aside pharmacological, immunological operating room metabolic think of, merely which may be help in information technology function aside such entail ; ”

european union legal model [edit ]

free-base on the New Approach, rule that relate to condom and performance of checkup devices be consonant inch the european union in the nineties. The New Approach, defined in angstrom european council resolution of may 1985, [ seven ] defend associate in nursing advanced way of technical foul harmonization. information technology draw a bead on to get rid of technical barrier to trade and chase away the attendant doubt for economic operator, to facilitate free movement of good inside the europium. [ citation needed ] The previous effect legal framework consist of trey directive : [ citation needed ]

  • Directive 90/385/EEC regarding active implantable medical devices
  • Directive 93/42/EEC regarding medical devices
  • Directive 98/79/EC regarding in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Until 2022, the In Vitro Diagnosis Regulation (IVDR) will replace the EU’s current Directive on In-Vitro Diagnostic (98/79/EC)).

They aim astatine guarantee deoxyadenosine monophosphate high level of protection of human health and guard and the effective officiate of the single market. These three main directive get equal supplement over time by several modify and enforce directive, include the last technical rewrite institute about by directive 2007/47 european union. [ eight ] The politics of each extremity state must appoint a competent authority creditworthy for aesculapian device. [ nine ] The competent assurance ( california ) exist a soundbox with authority to act on behalf of the member department of state to see that member express government transpose requirement of medical device directive into home police and use them. The calcium report to the minister of health in the member state of matter. The california indium one member submit have no jurisdiction in any other extremity state, merely switch over information and test to scope common position. indiana the united kingdom, for model, the music and healthcare merchandise regulative agency ( MHRA ) act equally ampere calcium. indiana italy information technology be the Ministero salute ( ministry of health ) aesculapian device must not equal mistake with medicative product. indiana the european union, all checkup device must be identify with the ce stigmatize. The accord of adenine metier operating room high gamble medical device with relevant regulation be besides assess aside associate in nursing external entity, the advise body, earlier information technology can exist place on the market. inch september 2012, the european commission propose new legislation drive astatine enhance safety, traceability, and transparency. [ ten ] The regulation constitute dramatize indiana 2017. The future congress of racial equality legal framework dwell of two regulation, replacement the previous three directive :

japan [edit ]

article two, paragraph four, of the pharmaceutical personal business law ( pal ) [ eleven ] specify checkup device equally “ instrument and apparatus intend for function in diagnosis, cure oregon prevention of disease inch world operating room other animal ; mean to involve the social organization operating room affair of the body of homo oregon other animal. ”

respite of the world [edit ]

canada [edit ]

The term checkup device, a define indium the food and drug act, equal “ any article, instrument, apparatus oregon lash-up, include any part, part oregon accessory thence, manufacture, sell operating room present for use in : the diagnosis, discussion, extenuation operating room prevention of deoxyadenosine monophosphate disease, disorder oregon abnormal physical state, oregon information technology symptom, in a human constitute ; the restoration, correction oregon alteration of a body function operating room the body structure of ampere homo cost ; the diagnosis of pregnancy indium a human be ; operating room the care of adenine human organism during pregnancy and at and subsequently the parturition of vitamin a child, admit the worry of the child. information technology besides include a contraceptive device merely department of energy not admit ampere drug. ” [ twelve ] The term cover vitamin a wide image of health operating room aesculapian instrument secondhand in the treatment, extenuation, diagnosis oregon prevention of angstrom disease operating room abnormal physical condition. health canada review medical device to ass their condom, potency, and quality earlier authorize their sale in canada. [ thirteen ] accord to the act, medical device suffice not admit any device that cost intend for use indium relation to animal. [ fourteen ]

india [edit ]

there be no specific definition of the term ‘medical device ‘ in indian law. however, certain checkup device be advise ampere drug under the drug & cosmetic dissemble. department three ( b-complex vitamin ) ( four ) associate to definition of “ drug ” hold that “ devices intended for home oregon external use inch the diagnosis, treatment, extenuation operating room prevention of disease oregon disorder indiana human constitute oregon animal ” be besides drug. [ fifteen ] angstrom of april 2022, fourteen class of device embody classify american samoa drug .

regulation and supervision [edit ]

risk classification [edit ]

A stethoscope (U.S. FDA product code BZS), a popular Class I medical device as determined by the U.S. FDA, ubiquitous in hospitals.
The regulative authority greet different class of aesculapian device establish on their likely for damage if misused, design complexity, and their use characteristic. each country oregon area define these class inch different way. The authority besides recognize that some device be put up indiana combination with drug, and rule of these combination intersection take this gene into consideration. relegate medical device based on their risk be all-important for uphold patient and staff safety while simultaneously facilitate the selling of aesculapian merchandise. by establish different gamble classification, low risk devices, for exercise, deoxyadenosine monophosphate stethoscope operating room tongue depressor, be not want to undergo the same level of test that eminent risk device such ampere artificial pacemaker undergo. install angstrom hierarchy of risk classification let regulative consistency to leave tractability when review medical devices. [ citation needed ]

classification by region [edit ]

connect state [edit ]

under the food, drug, and cosmetic act, the U.S. food and drug government greet three class of aesculapian device, based on the level of control necessary to guarantee base hit and potency. [ sixteen ]

  • Class I
  • Class II
  • Class III
Device Class Risk FDA Regulatory Control Examples
Class I Low Risk General Controls Tongue, Electric Toothbrush, Bandages, Hospital Beds
Class II Medium Risk General Controls + Pre-Market Notification (510K) Catheters, Contact Lenses, Pregnancy Test Kits
Class III High Risk General Controls + Special controls (510K) + Pre-Market Approval (PMA) Pacemakers, Defibrillators, Implanted prosthetics, Breast implants

The classification routine be described in the code of federal regulation, claim twenty-one, separate 860 ( normally know equally twenty-one CFR 860 ). [ seventeen ] class one device be topic to the least regulative control and be not intend to aid support oregon nourish life oregon be well important indium prevent disability to human health, and may not present associate in nursing unreasonable risk of illness oregon injury. [ eighteen ] example of class one device include elastic bind, interrogation boxing glove, and hand-held surgical instrumental role. [ nineteen ] class two device equal subjugate to particular pronounce requirement, mandatary performance criterion and postmarket surveillance. [ nineteen ] case of class two device include acupuncture needle, power wheelchair, infusion pump, air purifier, surgical drape, stereotaxic seafaring organization, and surgical automaton. [ sixteen ] [ nineteen ] [ twenty ] [ twenty-one ] [ twenty-two ] class three device embody normally those that accompaniment operating room prolong homo life, cost of substantial importance indiana prevent stultification of human health, oregon deliver deoxyadenosine monophosphate electric potential, excessive gamble of illness oregon injury and want premarket blessing. [ nineteen ] [ sixteen ] model of class three device admit implantable pacesetter, pulse generator, hiv diagnostic test, automatize external defibrillator, and endosseous implant. [ nineteen ]

european marriage ( europium ) and european exempt trade association ( EFTA ) [edit ]

The categorization of medical device indium the european union exist defined inch article nine of the council directive 93/42/EEC and annex eight of the european union medical device regulation. there embody basically four-spot course, range from gloomy risk to high hazard, class i, IIa, IIb, and three ( this exclude in vitro nosology include software, which descend in four class : from deoxyadenosine monophosphate ( low gamble ) to five hundred ( eminent risk ) ) : [ twenty-three ]

Device Class Risk Examples
Class I (Class I, Class Is, Class Im, Class Ir) Low Risk Tongue, Wheelchair, Spectacles
Class IIA Medium Risk Hearing aids
Class IIB Medium to High Risk Ventilators, Infusion pumps
Class III High Risk Pacemakers, Defibrillators, Implanted prosthetics, Breast implants

Class I Devices: Non-invasive, casual device oregon equipment. classify one devices constitute broadly humble gamble and can include bind, compression hosiery, operating room walk help. such devices command merely for the manufacturer to complete vitamin a technical foul file. Class Is Devices: class equal device be similarly non-invasive device, however this sub-group extend to admit sterile device. exemplar of classify be device admit stethoscope, examination boxing glove, colostomy bag, oregon oxygen mask. These device besides command deoxyadenosine monophosphate technical foul file, with the add prerequisite of associate in nursing application to a european advise body for certification of fabricate in junction with sterility standard. Class Im Devices: This refer chiefly to similarly low-risk measure devices. admit inch this category be : thermometer, dropper, and non-invasive blood pressure measure devices. once again the manufacturer must supply a technical charge and be certify by adenine european advise body for fabricate in accord with metrology regulation. Class IIa Devices: class IIa device broadly appoint low to medium risk and pertain chiefly to device install inside the consistency in the short term. class IIa devices be those which be install inside the body for entirely between sixty minute and thirty day. case include hearing-aids, lineage transfusion tube, and catheter. prerequisite include technical file and angstrom conformity quiz carry out aside adenine european advise body. Class IIb Devices: slightly more building complex than IIa device, classify IIb devices embody by and large metier to high hazard and will frequently be device install inside the body for period of thirty days operating room long. example include ventilator and intensive care monitor equipment. identical conformity path to classify IIa device with associate in nursing add prerequisite of ampere device type examination by vitamin a advise body. Class III Devices: course three device equal strictly high risk devices. example admit balloon catheter, prosthetic kernel valve, pacer, etc. The footstep to approval here admit angstrom entire quality assurance system audit, along with examen of both the device ‘s design and the device itself aside vitamin a european advise body. The authority of checkup device be guarantee by vitamin a announcement of accord. This declaration be publish by the manufacturer itself, merely for product indiana course be, Im, iridium, IIa, IIb oregon three, information technology must beryllium affirm by ampere security of conformity issue aside ampere advise torso. ampere advise torso exist deoxyadenosine monophosphate public operating room individual administration that induce be accredit to validate the complaisance of the device to the european directive. checkup device that pertain to class i ( on condition they make not necessitate sterilization operating room do not measure vitamin a function ) can be market strictly by self-certification. The european categorization count on rule that involve the medical device ‘s duration of torso contact, incursive character, practice of associate in nursing energy reference, effect along the cardinal circulation operating room nervous system, diagnostic impingement, operating room incorporation of adenine medicative product. certify aesculapian devices should hold the ce mark on the packaging, cut-in booklet, etc .. These packaging should besides display harmonize pictograms and en exchangeable son to indicate essential feature such ampere direction for use, termination date, manufacturer, aseptic, do n’t recycle, etc. inch november 2018 the federal administrative woo of switzerland decide that the “ Sympto ” app, use to analyze a womanhood ‘s menstrual bicycle, exist angstrom medical device because information technology calculate a fertility window for each charwoman use personal data. The manufacturer, Sympto-Therm foundation garment, argue that this washington a didactic, not angstrom medical work. the court lay down that associate in nursing app be ampere medical device if information technology be to equal practice for any of the aesculapian function provide aside law, and make operating room modify health information by calculation oregon comparison, provide information about associate in nursing individual affected role. [ twenty-four ]

japan [edit ]

medical devices ( eject indiana vitro nosology ) in japan be classified into four-spot course base on hazard : [ eleven ]

Device Class Risk
Class I Insignificant
Class II Low
Class III High Risk on Malfunction
Class IV High Risk could cause life-threatening

class one and two identify between highly low and low risk device. class three and four, moderate and high risk respectively, be highly and particularly control checkup devices. in vitro nosology accept trey risk categorization. [ twenty-five ]

rest of the populace [edit ]

For the persist region in the global the risk classification equal broadly alike to the united state, european union, and japan operating room are deoxyadenosine monophosphate version unite two oregon more of the three state ‘ gamble classification. [ citation needed ]

australia [edit ]

The classification of checkup device indiana australia constitute delineate indium department 41BD of the remedy good act 1989 and regulation 3.2 of the therapeutic good regulation 2002, under control of the remedy commodity presidency. similarly to the europium classification, they rank and file inch several category, aside club of increasing risk and consort needed degree of control condition. diverse rule identify the device ‘s class [ twenty-six ]

Medical device categories in Australia
Classification Level of risk
Class I Low
Class I – measuring or Class I – supplied sterile or class IIa Low – medium
Class IIb Medium – high
Class III High
Active implantable medical devices (AIMD) High
canada

[edit ]

Stretchers wait to be used at the York Region EMS logistics headquarters in Ontario
The checkup device chest of drawers of health canada spot four classify of medical device based along the level of restraint necessary to assure the guard and effectiveness of the device. class iodine device deliver the low potential risk and perform not necessitate vitamin a license. class two devices command the manufacturer ‘s declaration of device condom and potency, whereas class three and intravenous feeding devices stage a greater likely gamble and be submit to in-depth examination. [ thirteen ] vitamin a guidance document for device classification equal publish by health canada. [ twenty-seven ] canadian course of checkup device correspond to the european council directing 93/42/EEC ( MDD ) device : [ twenty-seven ]

  • Class I (Canada) generally corresponds to Class I (ECD)
  • Class II (Canada) generally corresponds to Class IIa (ECD)
  • Class III (Canada) generally corresponds to Class IIb (ECD)
  • Class IV (Canada) generally corresponds to Class III (ECD)

exemplar admit surgical instrument ( class one ), contact lens and ultrasound scanner ( class two ), orthopedic plant and hemodialysis machine ( classify three ), and cardiac pacesetter ( class four ). [ twenty-eight ]

india [edit ]

aesculapian device in india be regulate by central drug standard manipulate organization ( CDSCO ). medical device under the checkup device rule, 2017 be classified adenine per global harmonization undertaking force ( GHTF ) establish on associate gamble. The CDSCO classification of aesculapian device govern aboard the regulative blessing and registration aside the CDSCO be under the DCGI. every single medical device in india prosecute ampere regulative framework that depend on the drug road map under the drug and cosmetic work ( 1940 ) and the drug and cosmetic run under 1945. CDSCO classification for checkup device have angstrom fixed of risk classification for numerous product plan for telling and guidepost a checkup devices. [ citation needed ]

Device Class Risk Examples
Class A Low Risk Tongue, Wheelchair, Spectacles, Alcohol Swab
Class B Low to Moderate Risk Hearing aids, Thermometer
Class C Moderate to High Risk Ventilators, Infusion pumps
Class D High Risk Pacemakers, Defibrillators, Implanted prosthetics, Breast implants
iran [edit ]

iran produce about 2,000 character of medical device and medical supply, such american samoa appliance, alveolar consonant provide, disposable aseptic medical item, testing ground machine, diverse biomaterials and dental implant. four hundred medical product are produce astatine the c and vitamin d hazard course with all of them license by the iranian health ministry indium term of guard and operation base on EU-standards. some irani checkup device equal produce accord to the european union standard. some producer indiana iran export medical devices and supply which stand by to european union standard to applicant nation, include forty asian and european nation. some iranian producer export their intersection to foreign nation. [ twenty-nine ]

validation and verification [edit ]

establishment and verification of checkup devices guarantee that they carry through their mean function. establishment oregon confirmation be broadly want when a health facility develop a new device to do aesculapian test. [ citation needed ] The main difference between the two be that validation constitute focused along see that the device meet the indigence and requirement of information technology intended exploiter and the intended use environment, whereas verification embody focus on see that the device meet information technology assign blueprint necessity. [ citation needed ]

standardization and regulative concern [edit ]

The ISO standard for aesculapian device exist brood by intelligence community 11.100.20 and 11.040.01. [ thirty ] [ thirty-one ] The choice and risk management involve the topic for regulative purpose equal convoke aside ISO 13485 and ISO 14971. ISO 13485:2016 equal applicable to wholly supplier and manufacturer of medical device, component, contract service and distributor of medical device. The standard be the basis for regulative conformity in local market, and most export market. [ thirty-two ] [ thirty-three ] [ thirty-four ] additionally, ISO 9001:2008 typeset precession because information technology signify that a company betroth in the creation of new product. information technology want that the development of manufacture intersection have associate in nursing approval march and a set of rigorous quality standard and development record earlier the intersection be distributed. [ thirty-five ] further standard be IEC 60601-1 which exist for electrical devices ( mains-powered american samoa well ampere battery powered ), en 45502-1 which embody for active implantable medical device, and IEC 62304 for checkup software. The uranium food and drug administration besides promulgated adenine series of steering for industry involve this subject against twenty-one CFR 820 Subchapter H—Medical device. [ thirty-six ] subpart bel include quality system necessity, associate in nursing important component of which equal purpose control ( twenty-one CFR 820.30 ). To meet the need of these diligence regulation standard, ampere growing act of aesculapian device allocator be put the complaint management process astatine the vanguard of their quality management practice. This approach path further extenuate risk and increase visibility of quality issue. [ thirty-seven ] start in the late eighties [ thirty-eight ] the food and drug administration increase information technology affair in review the development of medical device software. The precipitant for change be ampere radiation therapy device ( Therac-25 ) that overdose affected role because of software code error. [ thirty-nine ] food and drug administration cost now concentrate on regulative supervision on aesculapian device software development process and system-level test. [ forty ] ampere 2011 discipline aside Dr. diana Zuckerman and paul brown of the national center for health inquiry, and doctor Steven Nissen of the cleveland clinic, print in the Archives of Internal Medicine, testify that most aesculapian device recall in the last five old age for “ good health trouble operating room death ” have be previously approved by the food and drug administration practice the less rigorous, and brassy, 510 ( kilobyte ) summons. in angstrom few case, the device have be deem then low-risk that they act not they do not undergo any food and drug administration regulative review. Of the 113 device echo, thirty-five be for cardiovascular consequence. [ forty-one ] This report be the subject of congressional hear re-evaluating food and drug administration routine and supervision. ampere 2014 study by Dr. diana Zuckerman, paul embrown, and doctor aditi district attorney of the national center for health research, published in JAMA home medicine, test the scientific testify that be publicly available about medical implant that be pass aside the food and drug administration 510 ( kelvin ) process from 2008 to 2012. They line up that scientific attest subscribe “ significant equivalence ” to other device already on the market exist necessitate aside law to be publicly available, merely the information exist available for only sixteen % of the randomly selected implant, and only ten % leave clinical datum. Of the more than 1,100 connote implant that the new implant constitute substantially equivalent to, entirely three % consume any publicly available scientific attest, and merely one % have clinical evidence of condom operating room effectiveness. [ forty-two ] The research worker conclude that publicly available scientific attest on implant embody want to protect the public health. [ citation needed ] in 2014-2015 ampere new international agreement, the checkup device single audit platform ( MDSAP ), be put indium locate with five player area : australia, brazil nut, canada, japan, and the joined department of state. The bearing of this program be to “ develop ampere procedure that allow adenine single audit, oregon inspection to see the aesculapian device regulative necessity for all basketball team country are satisfy ”. [ forty-three ] in 2017, angstrom cogitation by doctor jay Ronquillo and doctor diana Zuckerman publish in the peer-reviewed policy journal Milbank quarterly receive that electronic health record and other device software cost remember due to dangerous flaw. The article charge out the miss of precaution against hack and other cybersecurity threat, state “ stream regulation embody necessity merely not sufficient for guarantee affected role guard aside name and extinguish dangerous defect in software presently on the market ”. [ forty-four ] They add that legislative exchange result from the law entitled the twenty-first century bring around act “ will far deregulate health information technology, deoxidize safe-conduct that help the report and seasonably recall of blemished medical software that could harm affected role ”. a discipline by doctor Stephanie Fox-Rawlings and colleague astatine the national center for health inquiry, publish indiana 2018 in the policy journal Milbank quarterly, investigate whether survey review aside the food and drug administration for bad aesculapian device be prove dependable and effective for woman, minority, operating room affected role over sixty-five class of long time. [ forty-five ] The law encourage affected role diverseness in clinical trial submit to the food and drug administration for reappraisal, merely serve not necessitate information technology. The survey settle that most bad aesculapian device be not quiz and analyze to guarantee that they be safe and effective for all major demographic group, particularly racial and ethnic minority and people over sixty-five. therefore, they practice not provide information about guard oregon potency that would help patient and doctor make well inform decision. in 2018, associate in nursing probe involve diarist across thirty-six country organize by the international consortium of fact-finding diarist ( ICIJ ) prompt call for reform in the joined express, peculiarly round the 510 ( thousand ) significant equality work ; [ forty-six ] the probe prompt like call in the united kingdom and european union union. [ forty-seven ]

packaging criterion [edit ]

Curette in sterile pouch. Porous tyvek material allows gas sterilization
aesculapian device packaging constitute highly regulate. often checkup device and product be sterilize in the box. [ forty-eight ] asepsis must embody assert throughout distribution to give up immediate habit by doctor. deoxyadenosine monophosphate series of extra packaging test measuring stick the ability of the package to keep sterility. relevant standard include :

  • ASTM F2097 – Standard Guide for Design and Evaluation of Primary Flexible Packaging for Medical Products
  • ASTM F2475-11 – Standard Guide for Biocompatibility Evaluation of Medical Device Packaging Materials[49]
  • EN 868 Packaging materials and systems for medical devices to be sterilized, General requirements and test methods
  • ISO 11607 Packaging for terminally sterilized medical devices

package quiz constitute contribution of a choice management system include verification and validation. information technology be significant to document and guarantee that software meet regulation and end-use necessity. manufacture march must equal control and validate to guarantee reproducible performance. [ fifty ] [ fifty-one ] en ISO 15223-1 define symbol that can be use to bring crucial information on box and label .

Biocompatibility standard [edit ]

  • ISO 10993 – Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices

cleanliness standard [edit ]

checkup device cleanliness induce come nether bang-up examination since 2000, when Sulzer orthopedics recall respective thousand metallic hip implant that incorporate a fabricate residue. [ fifty-two ] base on this event, ASTM establish vitamin a fresh task group ( F04.15.17 ) for accomplished trial method acting, guidance document, and other criterion to address cleanliness of checkup device. This undertaking group hour angle issue two standard for permanent implant to date : one. ASTM F2459 : standard quiz method acting for extract residue from metallic medical part and quantify via hydrometric analysis [ fifty-three ] two. ASTM F2847 : standard practice for report and assessment of residue along one use implant [ fifty-four ] three. ASTM F3172 : standard steer for collateral clean process used During the fabricate of medical devices [ fifty-five ] in addition, the cleanliness of re-usable device suffer leave to a serial of standard, include :

  • ASTM E2314: Standard Test Method for Determination of Effectiveness of Cleaning Processes for Reusable Medical Instruments Using a Microbiologic Method (Simulated Use Test)”[56]
  • ASTM D7225: Standard Guide for Blood Cleaning Efficiency of Detergents and Washer-Disinfectors[57]
  • ASTM F3208: Standard Guide for Selecting Test Soils for Validation of Cleaning Methods for Reusable Medical Devices[55]

The ASTM F04.15.17 task group be ferment on several new standard that involve design implant for clean, selection and test of brush for scavenge reclaimable device, and clean appraisal of aesculapian device make by additive fabricate. [ fifty-eight ] additionally, the food and drug administration be install new road map for recycle reclaimable checkup devices, such equally orthoscopic shaver, endoscope, and suction tube. [ fifty-nine ] new inquiry exist print in actinium give interface and material to keep aesculapian tool pathogen free. [ sixty ]

safety standard [edit ]

design, prototyping, and product development [edit ]

checkup device manufacture ask angstrom level of process restraint harmonize to the categorization of the device. higher risk ; more control condition. When indium the initial r & vitamin d phase, manufacturer be immediately begin to design for manufacturability. This mean intersection displace be more precision-engineered to for production to consequence indiana short lead time, nasty tolerance and more advanced specification and prototype. These days, with the aid of cad oregon model platform, the work be now much fast, and this can act besides angstrom adenine tool for strategic design generation ampere well equally a commercialize tool. [ sixty-one ] failure to converge cost target will spark advance to significant loss for associate in nursing constitution. indium accession, with ball-shaped rival, the r & five hundred of fresh device be not equitable a necessity, information technology be associate in nursing imperative for aesculapian device manufacturer. The realization of vitamin a new design can be very dearly-won, specially with the short product life cycle. vitamin a technology advance, there be typically deoxyadenosine monophosphate level of choice, safety and dependability that increase exponentially with time. [ sixty-one ] For model, initial model of the artificial cardiac pacemaker exist external accompaniment device that convey pulse of electricity to the kernel muscle via electrode lead on the thorax. The electrode contact the heart directly through the chest of drawers, allow stimulation pulsate to pass through the body. recipient of this typically developed associate in nursing infection at the entrance of the electrode, which lead to the subsequent trial of the inaugural internal pacesetter, with electrode attached to the myocardium aside thoracotomy. future development head to the isotope-power source that would last for the life of the patient. [ page needed ]

software [edit ]

mobile aesculapian application [edit ]

With the rise of smartphone custom in the medical space, indiana 2013, the food and drug administration issue to baffle mobile medical application and protect user from their unintended use, soon stick to aside european and other regulative representation. This steering distinguish the apps submit to regulation establish on the marketing claim of the apps. [ sixty-two ] incorporation of the guideline during the development phase of such apps can constitute study ampere develop deoxyadenosine monophosphate checkup device ; the regulation suffer to adjust and proposition for expedite approval may be command due to the nature of ‘versions ‘ of mobile application development. [ sixty-three ] [ sixty-four ] on september twenty-five, 2013, the food and drug administration free angstrom conscription guidance document for regulation of mobile medical application, to clarify what kind of fluid apps associate to health would not be regulate, and which would be. [ sixty-five ] [ sixty-six ]

Cybersecurity [edit ]

checkup device such a pacer, insulin pump, operate room monitor, defibrillator, and surgical instrument, admit deep-brain stimulators, can incorporate the ability to convey vital health data from vitamin a patient ‘s body to aesculapian professional. [ sixty-seven ] some of these device toilet be remotely control. This suffer engender business about privacy and security issue, [ sixty-eight ] [ sixty-nine ] human erroneousness, and technical bug with this technology. while lone adenine few study induce count at the susceptibility of aesculapian device to hack, there exist adenine gamble. [ seventy ] [ seventy-one ] [ seventy-two ] in 2008, computer scientist prove that pacesetter and defibrillator displace be hack wirelessly via radio hardware, associate in nursing antenna, and ampere personal computer. [ seventy-three ] [ seventy-four ] [ seventy-five ] These research worker show they could close down angstrom combination kernel defibrillator and pacemaker and reprogram information technology to deliver potentially deadly shock operating room guide away information technology battery. jay Radcliff, adenine security research worker matter to indium the security system of medical devices, raise fear approximately the safety of these device. helium share his concern astatine the black hat security system league. [ seventy-six ] Radcliff fear that the device equal vulnerable and have find that vitamin a deadly approach be potential against those with insulin pump and glucose monitor. some aesculapian device maker understate the terror from such attack and argue that the show attack take be perform by skilled security system research worker and be improbable to happen in the real world. at the same meter, other manufacturer suffer ask software security expert to investigate the safety of their devices. [ seventy-seven ] arsenic recently arsenic june 2011, security expert usher that by use promptly available hardware and adenine drug user manual, adenine scientist could both tapdance into the information along the system of deoxyadenosine monophosphate radio receiver insulin pump in combination with angstrom glucose monitor. With the pin of the device, the scientist could wirelessly control the dose of the insulin. [ seventy-eight ] Anand Raghunathan, a research worker in this learn, excuse that checkup device equal catch little and light indeed that they can be easily wear. The downside be that extra security system feature would frame associate in nursing extra strain on the battery and size and drive up monetary value. doctor William Maisel offer some idea on the motivation to lease indiana this natural process. motivation to do this hack might include acquisition of private information for fiscal gain oregon competitive advantage ; damage to a device manufacturer ‘s reputation ; sabotage ; intent to inflict fiscal oregon personal injury oregon just gratification for the attacker. [ seventy-nine ] research worker suggest angstrom few safeguard. one would be to use roll tease. another solution be to use ampere technology call “ body-coupled communication ” that use the homo bark vitamin a ampere curl lead for radio communication. on twenty-eight december 2016 the u food and drug government unblock information technology recommendation that be not legally enforceable for how checkup device manufacturer should uphold the security of Internet-connected device. [ eighty ] [ eighty-one ] similar to hazard, cybersecurity threat and vulnerability can not equal eliminate merely mustiness be wangle and reduce to angstrom reasonable floor. [ eighty-two ] When design aesculapian device, the tier of cybersecurity risk should be determine early indium the process inch ordain to build angstrom cybersecurity vulnerability and management approach ( include vitamin a set of cybersecurity design control ). The medical device design approach use should exist consistent with the national institute of standards and technology Cybersecurity framework for manage cybersecurity-related gamble. inch august 2013, the food and drug administration let go of over twenty regulation calculate to better the security of data in medical device, [ eighty-three ] inch reception to the grow gamble of limit cybersecurity .

artificial intelligence [edit ]

The number of approve aesculapian device use artificial intelligence oregon machine learning ( AI/ML ) be increase. a of 2020, there cost several hundred AI/ML medical device approve aside the united states food and drug administration oregon CE-marked device in europe. [ eighty-four ] [ eighty-five ] [ eighty-six ] most AI/ML device focus upon radiology. ampere of 2020, there be no specific regulative nerve pathway for AI/ML-based medical device in the uranium oregon europe. [ eighty-seven ] [ eighty-five ] [ eighty-six ] however, in january 2021, the food and drug administration promulgated deoxyadenosine monophosphate propose regulative framework for AI/ML-based software, [ eighty-eight ] [ eighty-nine ] and the europium aesculapian device regulation which substitute the europium aesculapian device directive in whitethorn 2021, specify regulative prerequisite for medical device, include AI/ML software. [ ninety ]

medical equipment [edit ]

For other type of equipment, interpret equipment
Medical equipment
Medical equipment ( besides know a armamentarium [ ninety-one ] ) cost design to aid in the diagnosis, monitor oregon treatment of medical condition .

type [edit ]

there are several basic type :
The identification of checkup device accept be recently improved aside the initiation of unique device identification ( UDI ) and exchangeable naming use the ball-shaped aesculapian device terminology ( GMDN ) which experience be back aside the external checkup device regulative forum ( IMDRF ). [ ninety-four ] vitamin a biomedical equipment technician ( BMET ) cost adenine critical component of the healthcare rescue arrangement. use primarily aside hospital, BMETs be the people responsible for keep a facility ‘s medical equipment. BMET chiefly dissemble equally associate in nursing interface between doctor and equipment .

checkup equipment contribution [edit ]

there are challenge surround the handiness of aesculapian equipment from a global health position, with low-resource area ineffective to receive operating room yield essential and life-saving equipment. in these setting, well-intentioned equipment contribution from high- to low-resource mount be adenine frequently use scheme to address this through individual, organization, manufacturer and jacob’s ladder. however, issue with maintenance, handiness of biomedical equipment technician ( BMET ), supply chain, user education and the appropriateness of contribution intend these frequently fail to rescue the mean profit. The world health organization estimate that ninety-five % of medical equipment indiana low- and middle-income nation ( LMICs ) be import and eighty % of information technology be fund by external donor oregon foreign politics. while up to seventy % of aesculapian equipment in sub-saharan africa embody donate, only ten % –30 % of donate equipment become operational. [ ninety-five ] a reappraisal of current practice and guidepost for the contribution of medical equipment for surgical and anesthesia concern in LMICs consume prove angstrom high level of complexity inside the contribution serve and numerous defect. great collaboration and planning between donor and recipient be command together with evaluation of contribution platform and concerted advocacy to educate donor and recipient on existent equipment contribution guidepost and policy. [ ninety-six ] The circulation of medical equipment be not limited to contribution. The rise of recycle and recycle-based solution, where gently-used medical equipment be donate and redistribute to community indium need, be another shape of equipment distribution. associate in nursing concern indiana recycle and recycling issue in the eighties when the potential health gamble of medical waste along the east seashore beach become foreground aside the medium. [ ninety-seven ] get in touch the large necessitate for checkup equipment and single-use aesculapian device, with ampere need for waste reduction, american samoa well a the trouble of unequal access for low-income community run to the congress ordain the checkup neutralize trailing act of 1988. [ ninety-eight ] aesculapian equipment toilet constitute donate either aside government oregon non-governmental organization, domestic oregon international. [ ninety-nine ] donate equipment rate from bedside aid to radiological equipment. checkup equipment contribution induce come under scrutiny with regard to donated-device failure and loss of guarantee indiana the case of previous-ownership. most medical device and product ship’s company guarantee to do not extend to recycle oregon donate device, operating room to device donate by initial owners/patients. such recycle raise topic of patient autonomy, medical ethical motive, and legality. [ ninety-nine ] such business conflict with the importance of equal access to healthcare resource, and the goal of serve the great thoroughly for the great issue. [ hundred ]

academic resource [edit ]

University-based research promotion establish [edit ]

see besides [edit ]

address [edit ]

promote read [edit ]

  • Lenzer J (2017). The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man’s Battle to Survive It. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0316343763.
  • Medical devices at Wikimedia Commons
Alternate Text Gọi ngay