MEMORANDUM
3 September 2003
To: File P910001/S022/A001,A002,A003,A004
From: John P. Holden, Ph.D.
FDA/CDRH/ODE/DCD/PVDB
Device: CVX-300
Excimer Laser System
Sponsor: Spectranetics Corporation
96 Talamine Ct
Colorado Springs, CO 80907-5186
Contacts: Neil Burris (Clinical Data Analyst) Phone: 719-633-8333
Christopher Reiser, Ph.D. (VP Technology & Clin Research) 719-442-2471
This report includes an FDA summary of the clinical,
statistical, and preclinical testing review memorandums regarding P910001/S022. This PMA Supplement from Spectranetics seeks
marketing approval for the CVX-300 Excimer Laser System and 15 models of laser
catheters for the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI). Ten of the catheter models have been previously
approved for use in coronary arteries; five are new catheter models specific to
this use in peripheral arteries to treat CLI.
Indications for Use:
The currently
proposed indications for use are as follows:
"For facilitating limb salvage in patients with critical limb
ischemia (associated with Rutherford Categories 4, 5 and 6) who have
angiographically evident culprit stenoses and/or occlusions in the SFA,
popliteal and/or infrapopliteal arteries, who are poor surgical candidates and
who are acceptable candidates for revascularization."
Review team
The FDA review team for this file is as follows:
Lead John Holden, Ph.D.
Lead Clinical Wolf Sapirstein, M.D.
Statistical Barbara Krasnicka, Ph.D.
Murty
Ponnapalli, Ph.D.
Laser device: Richard Felten
Biocompatibility,
Packaging and Sterilization Lisa
Kennell
Bioresearch Monitoring D. Laurie Bernato
The Office of Compliance
determined that there is no need for an inspection for compliance with the
Quality System (QS)/GMP regulations to cover PMA supplement P910001/S22. There are no technological changes not
previously covered during previous inspections. Also, there is no patient labeling for this device.
Device description
Spectranetics'
Excimer Laser Angioplasty (ELA) catheters consist of a bundle of optical glass
fibers arranged around a guidewire lumen.
Three types of ELA catheters have been evaluated in the LACI trial: Extreme Over-the-Wire (OTW), Vitesse Rapid
Exchange (Rx), and Vitesse Eccentric (Vitesse-E) models. All models consist of a proximal end that which
couples exclusively with the Spectranetics CVX-300 Excimer Laser. The CVX-300 Laser System is
controlled by software that instructs the laser to deliver the correct energy
for each catheter model. In OTW models, a bifurcation at the juncture
of the proximal and distal catheter portions permits insertion of an
appropriately sized quidewire (between 0.014” and 0.035” diameter) through the
lumen of the catheter. In Rx models,
the guidewire lumen begins 9 cm from the distal tip, to facilitate speedier
removal of the laser catheter.
Vitesse-E models are equipped with a torque handle to control rotation
of the distal catheter tip through a 360°arc around the eccentrically
positioned guidewire lumen. The ELA
catheters conduct 308 nm, pulsed laser light, from the CVX 300 source to the
atherosclerotic lesion or thrombus within an artery. The ultraviolet pulses ablate and debulk the lesion as the
catheter tip is slowly advanced through the blockage.
Clinical study
history and design
The company refers to its IDE study as the LACI (Laser Angioplasty for Critical limb Ischemia) trial. The IDE was conditionally approved as a feasibility study on December 22, 1998. The initial feasibility study (LACI l) was completed using the device for treatment of ischemic gangrene in 25 limbs of 23 patients.
An expansion of the study to a total of 192 patients (including the 25 approved for the feasibility study) and 20 sites (both US & OUS) was conditionally approved on January 26, 2001. Of the 167 patients allotted for phase 2, 30 were reserved for training (though not all of these were used). FDA's conditional approval letter for the pivotal trial included several comments and recommendations: A risk-benefit analysis would be needed for the PMA, and should include an analysis of all device- and procedure-related adverse events; the risk-benefit analysis should also quantify the purported benefits of the device (e.g., reducing stent use and/or the creation of surgical options); and it would be necessary to show that stenting (which was to be discouraged) does not confound the analysis of the study endpoints.
There are several
challenges associated with the design and analysis of the LACI II trial
conducted by Spectranetics. This pivotal
trial is a non-randomized study, relying on a published study as an historical
control. The control is the group of
673 control patients on whom 6-month follow-up was reported in: ICAI
Study Group. Prostanoids for Chronic
Critical Leg Ischemia: A randomized,
controlled, open-label trial with Prostaglandin E1. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130:412-421. Of the 673 control group patients, 7
patients (1%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 666 patients as the most
appropriate denominator for some outcome variables (see statistical review
memo). In the LACI II trial, 155
limbs in 145 patients were treated.
Eleven LACI patients (8%) were lost to follow-up during the 6-month
follow-up period, leaving 134 patients as
the most appropriate denominator for some outcome variables (see statistical
review memo). Note: The control study report
makes no distinction between patients
and limbs treated.
Laser catheter
usage in the clinical trial
The following table
lists the laser catheter models (and the number) used in the LACI study. It is noted that four of the models were
each used only once out of 203 uses in the study.
|
Model # |
Model
description |
Number used |
|
110-001 |
0.9 mm Extreme |
16 |
|
110-002 |
0.9 mm Extreme |
1 |
|
110-003 |
0.9 mm Vitesse |
5 |
|
114-001 |
1.4 mm Extreme |
1 |
|
114-009 |
1.4 mm Vitesse COS |
24 |
|
117-007 |
1.7 mm Vitesse C |
1 |
|
117-016 |
1.7 mm Vitesse COS |
22 |
|
120-001 |
2.0 mm Extreme |
10 |
|
120-008 |
2.0 mm Vitesse E |
10 |
|
120-009 |
2.0 mm Vitesse COS |
17 |
|
220-006 |
2.0 mm Extreme II |
4 |
|
222-005 |
2.2 mm Extreme |
54 |
|
223-001 |
2.3 mm Extreme II |
1 |
|
225-004 |
2.5 mm Extreme |
34 |
|
225-010 |
2.5 mm Extreme II |
3 |
|
|
Total: |
203 |
PMA Chronology
The following table
provides a chronology of formal interactions for this PMA. Additional informal (e.g., e-mail,
telephone) interactions, including requests for and receipt of clarification
and information, occurred throughout the review process and are not outlined
here.
PMA Chronology for P910001/S22
|
Date |
Event |
|
January 22, 2003 |
PMA received with clinical data |
|
January 22, 2003 |
PMA filing date |
|
February 14, 2003 |
Amendment 1: Response to request for draft SSED |
|
March 26, 2003 |
Amendment 2: Response to requests for additional information, including Operator's Manual, clinical protocol, and results stratified by study center. |
|
April 9, 2003 |
Amendment 3: Response to questions concerning risk-benefit analysis, laser parameters, and catheter recognition by system. |
|
May 6, 2003 |
Major deficiency letter issued on risk analysis, safety and effectiveness results, clinical protocol, and device software and instructions for use |
|
May 13, 2003 |
Meeting with applicant to discuss May 6, 2003 letter. |
|
June 10, 2003 |
Amendment 5: Reply to major deficiency letter. |
|
October 2, 2003 |
Scheduled for review by Circulatory System Devices Panel |
Review summary
Non-clinical
The review of the biocompatibility, in vivo animal studies, manufacturing and sterilization information (including packaging and shelf-life) have been completed and there are no outstanding issues regarding these parts of the PMA.
Additional information was requested and received regarding the in vitro data provided, with respect to laser parameters, catheter recognition by system, results of shelf-life testing. The sponsor has replied to all requests for additional information.
Clinical
The sponsor was asked to address concerns raised regarding the clinical information provided in the PMA, most notably related to the following issues:
·
risk/benefit
analysis in light of deaths, serious adverse events (including
re-interventions), and persistence of CLI in the LACI population;
·
a discrepancy in the reported risk of major amputation;
·
consequences and outcomes of cases in which a
perforation occurred;
·
reporting of event
rates for the historical control group;
·
the number of LACI cases that met the criterion of high
risk for surgical mortality, evidenced by ASA Physical Class 4 or higher;
·
reporting of
results for the secondary Peripheral Vascular Endpoint (rate of
amputation or persistent critical limb ischemia in patients surviving to 6
months);
·
failed guidewire crossing and use of the step-by-step
laser technique;
·
the use of adjunctive drug therapy in the LACI study
population; and
·
the definition
for establishment of straight line flow.
All clarification and additional information requested during the review of the clinical data have been provided. The lead clinical and statistical reviews of this PMA are attached.
Summary
All FDA requests for additional information have been satisfied. The questions identified for the panel outline the issues identified as requiring discussion by the review team.