Key result
EHRA calls for multi-stakeholder collaboration to drive cardiovascular and arrhythmia innovation in Europe.
Why the study?
Innovation in cardiovascular disease, particularly arrhythmias, requires input from multiple stakeholders to overcome roadblocks and improve healthcare efficacy and costs.
Forum broadens arrhythmia innovation dialogue across stakeholders; leaves open translation into practice or trials.
The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) held an Innovation Forum in February 2016, to consider issues around innovation. The objective of the forum was to extend the innovation debate outside of the narrow world of arrhythmia specialists and cardiology in general, and seek input from all stakeholders including regulators, strategists, technologists, industry, academia, health providers, medical societies, payers, and patients. Innovation is indispensable for a continuing improvement in health care, preferably at higher efficacy and lower costs. It requires people who have been trained in a good scientific environment, high-quality research for achieving ground breaking inventions and the certainty of return on innovation investments. In the context of cardiovascular disease, innovation can imply better risk assessment and stratification, device technology, drug development, and process design. Several areas of promising developments were identified as well as several roadblocks to innovation. To drive innovation forward all stakeholders need to play a significant role. In a globalized and extremely competitive world, the leading role of Europe in medical innovation can only be achieved through a combined and well-coordinated effort from all involved parties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prinzen et al. (2017) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease and arrhythmias. The EHRA Innovation Forum highlighted the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to drive medical innovation in cardiovascular disease and arrhythmias in Europe.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: