This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Maisel, W. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maisel, W. H. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research CPR and emergency cardiac care Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs

(Circulation. 2005;111:2143-2145.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

New Drugs and Technologies

Report From the Meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiologic Health

September 21, 2004

William H. Maisel, MD, MPH

From the US Food and Drug Administration, Circulatory System Devices Panel, Washington, DC, and the Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to William H. Maisel, MD, MPH, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail wmaisel@partners.org

Key Words: United States Food and Drug Administration • cardiopulmonary resuscitation • hypothermia • device approval • heart arrest

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Circulatory System Devices Panel met to discuss the type of data required to effectively evaluate the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and hypothermia devices for cardiac arrest patients. Advisory panels make nonbinding recommendations to the FDA.

The era of modern CPR began in the 1960s, when mouth-to-mouth ventilation combined with forceful chest compressions were first used together to attempt to resuscitate victims of cardiopulmonary arrest. Unfortunately, despite the promise of a variety of pharmacological, electrical, and mechanical therapies during and after administration of CPR, meaningful improvements in cardiac arrest survival have been difficult to achieve.

Earlier generations of CPR devices are designed to assist the rescuer in the performance of CPR. These devices, for example, may compress the chest at a fixed rate and compression depth, or they may provide audible or visual indicators to assist the rescuer with compliance with published CPR guidelines. In general, regulatory guidelines do not require clinical data for these devices as long as they are similar in design and technology to previously marketed "predicate" devices. More than 30 devices for external compression and/or timing assistance during CPR have been cleared for marketing by the FDA.

Devices intended to enhance a clinical aspect of CPR, in contrast to devices designed simply to assist the rescuer in the performance of CPR, require clinical data to support approval of the device. These devices, such as those providing interposed abdominal compression, circumferential chest compression, or active compression-decompression, have focused primarily on . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Zaslav, B. Cole, R. Brewster, T. DeBerardino, J. Farr, P. Fowler, and C. Nissen A Prospective Study of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in Patients With Failed Prior Treatment for Articular Cartilage Defect of the Knee: Results of the Study of the Treatment of Articular Repair (STAR) Clinical Trial Am. J. Sports Med., January 1, 2009; 37(1): 42 - 55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]