Underreporting of complications following AF ablation: Comparison of the manufacturer and user facility device experience FDA database and a voluntary invitation-based registry: The POTTER-AF 3 study

Abstract

BackgroundThe Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database houses medical device reports of adverse events involving medical devices marketed in the United States submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by mandatory and voluntary reporters. The MAUDE database is frequently used in clinical studies to report on device-related complications. Data about its efficacy are scarce. ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the mandatory MAUDE database (MAUDE group) with the invitation-based POTTER-AF study (POTTER-AF 1 group) regarding data quality, procedural characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and survival. MethodsThe reports of esophageal fistula esophageal fistula following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in the MAUDE database were compared with those in the POTTER-AF study between August 1, 2009, and August 31, 2019. ResultsEsophageal fistulas were reported in 47 patients in the MAUDE group and in 81 in the POTTER-AF 1 group. Procedures were performed with radiofrequency, cryoenergy, or laser energy in 66.0%, 31.9%, and 2.1% (MAUDE group) and in 96.3%, 2.5%, and 1.2% (POTTER-AF 1 group). The median time to symptoms was 21 (14, 32.5) days (MAUDE group) and 18.0 (6.8, 22.3) days (POTTER-AF 1 group; P = .031). The diagnostic method was reported in 38.3% of patients in the MAUDE group and in 98.8% in the POTTER-AF 1 group, the treatment in 57.4% and 100%, and the outcome in all patients. In the MAUDE group, treatment was surgical (51.9%), endoscopic (37.0%), combined (3.7%), or conservative (7.4%), compared with 43.2%, 19.8%, 7.4%, and 29.6% in the POTTER-AF 1 group. Overall mortality was 76.6% in the MAUDE group and 61.7% in the POTTER-AF 1 group (P = .118). ConclusionIn the mandatory MAUDE database, fewer esophageal fistula cases were reported compared with an invitation-based study. The data quality in the MAUDE database was significantly poorer.