At its core, this sounds great. But who at HRX represents the patient care perspective? Shouldn’t there be hospital administrators, patient organizations, or value analysis team members there to gauge the value that innovation brings to the patient population?

The HRX gathering creates a great environment for technology-based innovation, not patient-based innovation. This represents a microcosm of a larger problem in electrophysiology, which prioritizes a doctor’s viewpoint on innovation over that of the patient population.


Clinical trials for new medical technology focus on efficacy (outcomes) and patient safety, both of which are important. However, they don’t weigh in on the overall value delivered by a new technology. At the same time, doctors are looking for advanced functionality in new devices—functionality that doesn’t necessarily translate to better outcomes.

The innovations that matter most
Assessments of medical technology innovation need to go beyond efficacy, safety, and bells and whistles designed to impress doctors. Innovation needs to be viewed through a holistic patient and quality of care lens. There are many forms of medical device innovation that benefit patients from a care perspective that simple technology evaluation does not consider. These include the following.

Innovation that makes procedures shorter: I recently had the opportunity to watch a pulsed field ablation (PGA) procedure. PFA is seemingly safer, and the procedures are done faster. When procedures are done faster, the lab can treat more patients. This is good innovation from a patient-based innovation perspective. The fact that a PFA catheter costs 2-3 times more than other ablation catheters obviously should be considered as well. Since our healthcare system only has so much money, the value of innovation has to be calculated as patient care value relative to the extra cost of innovation.

Innovation that makes technology use easier: It is a strange byproduct of events like HRX that new technologies seem to offer more functionality but also are more complex than the technologies they replace. This means that many new innovations in medical technology narrow the field of doctors who can master the use of the technology. This means that fewer patients get access to procedures done with the newest technology. (As in all professions, not all doctors are equally good at what they do.) On the contrary, innovation that democratizes technology by making it accessible to more doctors is good innovation from a patient-based innovation perspective. However, we rarely see it.

U.S. Healthcare Homepage