4.0 Article

How can cardiothoracic and vascular medical devices stay in the market?

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw257

关键词

Innovation; Diffusion; Industry; Implementation; Technology; Cardiac

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surgeons, as the consumers, must engage in commercial activity regarding medical devices since it directly has impacts on surgical practice and patient outcomes. Unique features defy traditional economic convention in this specific market partly because consumers do not usually pay directly. Greater involvement with commercial activity means better post-market surveillance of medical devices which leads to improved patient safety. The medical device industry has exhibited astonishing levels of growth and profitability reaching $ 398 billion on a global scale with new product development focusing on unmet clinical need. The industry has rapidly emerged within the context of an ageing population and a global surge in healthcare spending. But the market remains fragmented. The split of consumer, purchaser and payer leads to clinical need driving demand for new product development. This demand contributes to potentially large profit margins mainly contained by regulatory burden and liability issues. Demographic trends, prevalence of diseases and a huge capacity to absorb technology have sustained near unparalleled growth. To stay in the market, incremental development over the short term is essentially aided by responsiveness to demand. Disruptive product development is now more likely to come from multinational companies, in an increasingly expensive, regulated industry. Understanding healthcare organization can help explain the highly complex process of diffusion of innovations in healthcare that include medical devices. The time has come for surgeons to become actively involved with all aspects of the medical device life cycle including commercial activity and post-market surveillance. This is vital for improving patient care and ensuring patient safety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据