Cook Medical’s Zilver® PTX® Earns FDA Approval As First Drug-Eluting Stent in U.S. to Treat Peripheral Arterial Disease

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

Cook Medical has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing approval for the first devices in its Zilver® PTX® Drug-Eluting Peripheral Stentportfolio, company officials reported today. It’s the first time the FDA has approved a drug-eluting stent to treat blockages in a peripheral artery.

“This approval marks the start of Cook’s program to bring the benefits of drug elution to U.S. physicians treating the peripheral arteries,” said Rob Lyles, vice president and global leader of Cook Medical’s Peripheral Intervention division. “No other company can match Cook’s commitment to this technology, and by the end of 2013, we expect to have a full suite of drug-eluting peripheral stents in the most commonly used lengths and diameters available to U.S. physicians.”

The Zilver PTX Drug-Eluting Stent is intended to treat peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the superficial femoral artery (SFA).

In order to supply as many physicians as possible with this new technology, Cook is making Zilver PTX available initially in 80 mm lengths in 6 mm and 7 mm diameters. The products indications for use also allow two Zilver PTX 80 mm stents to be overlapped to treat longer lesions up to 140 mm. The FDA approval also includes 40 mm and 60 mm lengths, which will be introduced to the U.S. early in 2013. Cook expects to receive regulatory approval for 120 mm length stents in both diameters next year.

Data from Cook’s pivotal clinical trial indicate:

Eight out of ten patients treated with Zilver PTX still had open arteries (primary patency) after one year1. That compares to only 3 out of 10 patients treated with angioplasty alone.

Patients who received a bare metal stent required more than twice as many reintervention procedures to reopen the SFA as patients who received Zilver PTX. 2

“After conducting the largest randomized controlled study of peripheral stenting ever undertaken, we now see remarkable results in patients treated with Zilver PTX,” said Michael Dake, M.D., a professor in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Stanford University School of Medicine and medical director of the Cath/Angio Laboratories at Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif.

“With this approval, treating PAD in the U.S. will begin to undergo the same revolution that drug elution did for treating coronary artery disease,” added Gary Ansel, M.D., director for the Center for Critical Limb Care at Riverside Methodist Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and an assistant clinical professor of medicine in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Toledo Medical Center in Toledo, Ohio. “Drug-eluting stents such as Zilver PTX will move quickly, in my opinion, to become the standard of care for PAD patients worldwide.”

Cook’s Zilver PTX stent is already approved for sale in more than 50 markets, including the European Union, Japan, Brazil and most of South America, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan. The device is being introduced to the U.S. market in a five-step process designed to make this technology available to as many patients as possible initially.

(Drs. Dake and Ansel, who served as global principal investigators for the Zilver PTX clinical trial, are paid consultants to Cook Medical with respect to its medical devices.)

About Zilver PTX

How does Zilver PTX work?

A physician gains arterial access through the groin and guides a Zilver PTX stent to the narrowed artery with a catheter. The stent is deployed and expands like a scaffold to help keep the artery open after the catheter is withdrawn. The drug paclitaxel, which coats the stent, is taken up by the cells of the arterial wall to help prevent the renarrowing of the artery over time.

What are the main features of the device?

A combination therapy device, Zilver PTX both restores patency (blood flow) and provides targeted delivery of paclitaxel, a cell growth-limiting drug proven to reduce arterial restenosis (post-procedural blockages). This drug coats the stent without the use of a polymer, eliminating risks that may arise directly from a polymer. Zilver PTX is made of nitinol, a “shape memory” metal alloy, and is engineered to withstand the dynamic forces of the superficial femoral artery (SFA). Zilver PTX is the first peripheral vascular device that combines the mechanical support of stenting with the drug paclitaxel to reduce the risk of restenosis.

What data supports the efficacy of Zilver PTX?

Two-year data from the Zilver PTX Randomized Controlled Trial of Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Femoropopliteal Disease indicate that the stent demonstrated 74.8 percent primary patency at 24 months in the PTX group, compared to just 57.8 percent for patients with optimal percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and bare metal stents in the 479 patient study.

What are other current means of treatment for PAD?

Current treatment options for PAD include lifestyle changes, medication, exercise, angioplasty, bare metal stenting and bypass surgery.

What is Zilver PTX indicated for and what are the risks and contraindications for this device?

INDICATIONS: indicated for improving luminal diameter for the treatment of de novo or restenotic symptomatic lesions in native vascular disease of the above-the-knee femoropopliteal arteries having reference vessel diameter from 4mm to 7mm and total lesion lengths up to 140 mm per limb and 280 mm per patient. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Women who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant in the next 5 years should not receive a Zilver PTX Drug-Eluting Peripheral Stent. Patients who cannot receive recommended anti-platelet and/or anti-coagulant therapy. Patients judged to have a lesion that prevents proper placement of the stent or stent delivery system. WARNINGS: Persons with allergic reactions to nitinol may suffer an allergic reaction to this implant • Persons allergic to paclitaxel may suffer an allergic reaction to this implant • The safety and effectiveness of implanting more than four Zilver PTX Drug Eluting Peripheral Stents in a patient has not been clinically evaluated. PRECAUTIONS: To avoid involvement of the common femoral artery, the proximal end of the stent should be placed at least 1 cm below the origin of the superficial femoral artery. To avoid involvement of the below-the-knee popliteal artery, the distal end of the stent should be placed above the plane of the femoral epicondyles • This product is intended for use by physicians trained and experienced in diagnostic and interventional vascular techniques. Standard techniques for interventional vascular procedures should be employed • Manipulation of the Zilver PTX Drug-Eluting Peripheral Stent requires fluoroscopic control • Do not try to remove the stent from the introducer system before use • Ensure that the red safety lock is not inadvertently removed until final stent release • Deploy the stent over an extra stiff or ultra stiff wire guide • Do not push the hub toward the handle during deployment • Do not expose the delivery system to organic solvents (e.g., alcohol) • Do not use power injection systems with the delivery system • Do not rotate any part of the system during deployment • The device is intended for single use only. Do not resterilize and/or reuse this device • Repositioning of the device after deployment is not possible since the introducer catheter cannot be re-advanced over the stent once deployment begins. POTENTIALADVERSE EVENTS: Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited toAllergic reaction to anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic therapy or contrast medium• Allergic reaction to nitinol• Arterial aneurysm• Arterial rupture• Arterial thrombosis• Arteriovenous fistula• Atheroembolization (Blue Toe Syndrome)• Death• Embolism• Hematoma/hemorrhage• Hypersensitivity reactions• Infection• Infection/abscess formation at access site• Ischemia requiring intervention (bypass or amputation of toe, foot or leg • Pseudoaneurysm formation• Renal failure• Restenosis of the stented artery• Stent embolization• Stent malapposition• Stent migration• Stent strut fracture• Vessel perforation or rupture• Worsened claudication/rest pain. Paclitaxel: Although systemic effects are not anticipated, refer to the Physicians’ Desk Reference for more information on the potential adverse events observed with paclitaxel.Potential adverse events, not described in the above source, may be unique to the paclitaxel drug coating, including• Allergic/immunologic reaction to the drug coating• Alopecia• Anemia• Blood product transfusion• Gastrointestinal symptoms• Hematologic dyscrasia (including leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia)• Hepatic enzyme changes• Histologic changes in vessel wall, including inflammation, cellular damage, or necrosis• Myalgia/Arthralgia• Myelosuppression• Peripheral neuropathy

About Cook Medical

A global pioneer in medical breakthroughs, Cook Medical is committed to creating effective solutions that benefit millions of patients worldwide. Today, we combine medical devices, drugs, biologic grafts and cell therapies across more than 16,000 products serving 41 medical specialties. Founded in 1963 by a visionary who put patient needs and ethical business practices first,Cook is a family-owned company that has created more than 10,000 jobs worldwide.

 

 

 

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »