Using a Mock Circulatory Loop as a Regulatory Science Tool to Simulate Different Heart Failure Conditions.

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device therapy is one of the primary treatment options for end-stage heart failure (HF), whereby a mechanical pump is integrated with the failing heart to maintain adequate tissue perfusion. The ISO 14708-5:2020 standard prescribes generic guidelines for nonclinical device evaluation and system performance testing of MCS devices using a mock circulatory loop (MCL). However, the utility of MCLs in premarket regulatory submissions of MCS devices is ambiguous, and the specific disease states that the device is intended to treat are not usually simulated. Hence, we aim to outline the potential of MCLs as a valuable regulatory science tool for characterizing MCS device systems by adequately representing target clinical-use HF conditions on the bench. Target pathophysiologic hemodynamics of HF conditions (i.e., cardiogenic shock (CS), left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy secondary to hypertension, and coronary artery disease), along with a healthy adult at rest and a healthy adult during exercise are provided as recommended test conditions. The conditions are characterized based on LV, aorta, and left atrium pressures using recommended cardiac hemodynamic indices such as systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure, mean cardiac output (CO), cardiac cycle time, and systemic vascular resistance. This study is a first step toward standardizing MCLs to generate well-defined target HF conditions used to evaluate MCS devices.

Clinical evaluation of non-contact infrared thermometers.

Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under - 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from - 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between - 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject's temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject's temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool.

Performance characterization of non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) for forehead temperature measurement.

The ability to assess the performance of a non-contact infrared thermometer (NCIT) may be limited due to the algorithms necessary to predict a reference site temperature (e.g., oral) from a measurement of the forehead skin temperature. The algorithm not only adjusts for the difference between the reference site temperature and forehead temperature, but may also account for hardware corrections, bias adjustments and emissivity settings. These algorithms are proprietary to the manufacturer and can be unique for each device. ASTM E1965-98 (2016) is a standard test method for the evaluation of NCITs. It includes forehead thermometers; however, the algorithm must be known or an unadjusted calibration mode must be accessible. This study evaluates 6 NCIT models (10 units of each) against the ASTM standard error criterion using a blackbody source. Units were tested within the manufacturer's operating and temperature measurement range specification. A method to evaluate measurement outliers and characterize each model's performance when the adjustment algorithm is unknown is proposed. Using this method, 5 of the 6 models had a predicted error > 0.3°C.

Platelet and leukocyte count assay for thrombogenicity screening of biomaterials and medical devices: Evaluation and improvement of ASTM F2888 test standard.

An appropriate preclinical thrombogenicity evaluation of a blood-contacting device is important to reduce thrombosis and thromboembolism risks to patients. The in vitro platelet and leukocyte count assay, as described in the ASTM F2888 test standard, aims to assess thrombogenic potentials of blood-contacting materials. The goals of this study were to evaluate whether this standardized test method can effectively differentiate materials with different thrombogenic potentials and to investigate the impact of anticoagulation conditions on test sensitivity. Using human blood with various anticoagulation conditions, we performed the platelet and leukocyte count assays on four biomaterials and three positive control materials. We found that the use of sodium citrate anticoagulation as stipulated in the 2013 version of the ASTM F2888 standard cannot differentiate materials with different thrombogenic potentials. The modification to use low-concentration heparin, either with recalcified citrated blood or with direct heparinization, substantially improved the test sensitivity and enabled the assay to distinguish platelet count reduction between the positive controls and commonly used biomaterials. Leukocyte count was shown to be a much less sensitive indicator than platelet count for thrombogenicity evaluations of biomaterials. The findings from this study have been incorporated in the recent 2019 version of the ASTM F2888 standard.

A test method to assess the contribution of fluid shear stress to the cleaning of reusable device surfaces.

Adequate cleaning of reusable medical devices is critical for preventing cross-infection among patients. For reusable medical devices, cleaning using mechanical brushes and detergent may not be sufficient to completely remove the infectious contaminants from the surfaces. This study evaluates the role of fluid flow-induced shear stress in the detachment and removal of contaminants from device surfaces. A stainless-steel test coupon, acting as a surrogate for a device surface, was coated with artificial clot of varying mass. The test coupon was exposed to fluid shear stress both with and without an enzymatic detergent. The relationship between clot removal quantity and the applied shear stress was obtained for multiple clot masses. Our results showed that fluid shear increased the effectiveness of the cleaning process. In the absence of flow, soaking the clot surface in the enzymatic detergent removed 67%, 77%, and 95% of the clot for 16 mg, 6.8 mg, and 1 mg initial masses, respectively. In the presence of fluid shear (0.3 Pa for 5 min), approximately 85%, 97%, and 99% of the clot was removed from the surface. The clot mass removed followed a linear relationship (R2 = 0.98) versus the applied fluid shear stress. This study showed that different cleaning processes such as fluid shear and detergent action contribute to the soil removal process. This method could be used to evaluate cleaning protocols for minimizing contaminant residue after the reprocessing of medical devices. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 1132-1140, 2019.

Pediatric circulatory support: an FDA perspective.

The Department of Health and Human Services, at the direction of Congress, has recently begun to address concerns regarding the development of medical devices designed specifically for the pediatric population, including devices for pediatric mechanical circulatory support, as evidenced by the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) funding of several development contracts. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for marketing of these devices will typically follow either of two regulatory pathways: the Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) or the Premarket Application (PMA). An HDE is limited both in the extent of clinical use and economic benefit to the manufacturer, but does not require data derived from a clinical trial for market approval. A PMA allows for use in a larger patient population and offers economic benefit for the manufacturer; it does, however, almost always necessitate data derived from a clinical trial. The HDE and PMA require demonstration of a reasonable assurance of safety. In addition, an HDE requires a demonstration of probable benefit, whereas a PMA requires a demonstration of a reasonable assurance of effectiveness. The evidence that can be used to support an HDE or a PMA approval may include both preclinical and clinical data. Types of preclinical tests needed depend upon the device design and its intended use, because circulatory support devices are all unique.