Guidance for Industry  
and FDA Staff  
Writing Dear Doctor Letters for 
Recalls of Implantable 
Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs)  
 
Document issued on July 19, 2007 
 
For questions regarding this document contact Kris Mejia, Office of Communication, 
Education and Radiation Programs at 301-796-5843 or by email at kristine.mejia@fda.hhs.gov; 
or contact Brian Lewis, Office of Device Evaluation, at 301-796-6361 or by email at 
brian.lewis@fda.hhs.gov.  
 
 
 
 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Food and Drug Administration 
Center for Devices and Radiological Health 
 
Office of Communication, Education and Radiation Programs 
Division of Device User Programs and Systems Analysis 
Labeling, Research, and Policy Development Branch  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
Preface 
Public Comment 
 
Written comments and suggestions may be submitted at any time for Agency consideration to 
the Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, 
Room 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD, 20852.   
 
When submitting comments, please refer to the exact title of this guidance document.  
Comments may not be acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or 
updated.   
 
Additional Copies 
 
Additional copies are available from the Internet at: 
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ocer/guidance/1645.html.  You may also send an e-mail request to 
dsmica@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the guidance or send a fax request to 
301-847-8149 to receive a hard copy.  Please use the document number (1645) to identify the 
guidance you are requesting.  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
Table of Contents 
 
Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 
Background...............................................................................................................................2 
Scope.........................................................................................................................................3 
Research....................................................................................................................................3 
Recommendations.....................................................................................................................4 
Other Resources........................................................................................................................6  Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
 
Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff  
 
Writing Dear Doctor Letters for  
Recalls of Implantable  
Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs)  
 
 
This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking 
on this topic.  It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not 
operate to bind FDA or the public.  You can use an alternative approach if the approach 
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.  If you want to discuss 
an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this 
guidance.  If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number 
listed on the title page of this guidance.  
 
Introduction 
This guidance provides best practices for manufacturers when drafting and issuing Dear 
Doctor letters to disseminate information about significant health hazards to users of 
implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).  This guidance may also be used by FDA in 
reviewing manufacturers Dear Doctor letters prior to their issuance.  This guidance includes 
recommendations for technical content, formatting, and use of risk communication 
principles.  These letters may also be titled Dear Health Care Professional when they are 
disseminated beyond the direct physician community.    
 
FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable 
responsibilities.  Instead, guidances describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and 
should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory 
requirements are cited.  The use of the word should in Agency guidances means that 
something is suggested or recommended, but not required.  
 
The Least Burdensome Approach 
We believe we should consider the least burdensome approach in all areas of medical device 
regulation.  This guidance reflects our careful review of the relevant scientific and legal 
requirements and what we believe is the least burdensome way for you to comply with those 
requirements.  However, if you believe that an alternative approach would be less 
  1 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
burdensome, please contact us so we can consider your point of view.  You may send your 
written comments to the contact person listed in the preface to this guidance or to the CDRH 
Ombudsman.  Comprehensive information on CDRH's Ombudsman, including ways to 
contact him, can be found on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ombudsman/.  
 
 
Background 
ICDs provide survival protection to patients at risk of sudden cardiac arrest.  These devices 
significantly reduce the increased risk of sudden cardiac death due to sustained ventricular 
tachycardia or fibrillation, a leading cause of death in the U.S.  However, like any medical 
device, ICDs can fail to operate as intended.  These failures can be related to the design, 
manufacturing, and/or labeling of the device.  
 
When these failures involve ICDs in distribution, a recall (correction or removal) should be 
initiated by the manufacturer with oversight by FDA.  Manufacturers involved in a recall 
should notify all consignees, including physicians, of the reason for recall and the suggested 
actions to be taken to correct or minimize the risk to patients (21 CFR 7.49).  Ideally, a well-
written Dear Doctor letter will be the first line of communication to physicians in the event 
of a recall, accurately and rapidly conveying information in a way that helps physicians to 
make appropriate health care decisions with their patients.   
 
The wording, formatting, and content of Dear Doctor letters are recognized as critical factors 
in helping physicians to comprehend and appropriately address potential ICD failures with 
patients in their practice.  When Dear Doctor letters are poorly written, they may contribute 
to unnecessary device removal or replacement.  Furthermore, Dear Doctor letters that are 
reissued with corrections or revisions may cause additional confusion. 
 
The communication of ICD failures requires a specialized approach because of several 
unique characteristics.  First, ICDs are life-saving devices.  Patients rely on these devices to 
provide life-saving shocks in the event of an arrhythmia, and some rely on them for round-
the-clock cardiac pacing.  Therefore, certain types of ICD failures can directly result in 
patient death.  Second, while recalls often require the return of products to the firm, ICDs are 
long-term implants with risks associated with explantation.  These risks may be higher than 
the risk of continued use of the device.  Therefore, specific information is needed so that 
physicians and patients can carefully consider whether or not the device should be removed 
and replaced in any individual patient.  Finally, ICDs are programmable, so that some types 
of problems can be fixed non-invasively through reprogramming.  The goal of 
communication in the event of an ICD recall is to help physicians, other health care 
professionals, and patients make the appropriate decision for each patient about explanting 
the device, reprogramming it, or taking a watch and wait approach. 
 
  2 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
Scope 
 
This guidance provides FDAs recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of Dear 
Doctor letters through completeness, clarity, and readability, and for enhancing utility in 
providing doctors with recommendations related specifically to implantable cardioverter 
defibrillators. 
 
This guidance should be used by industry when information related to ICD failures and 
corrections or removals are being communicated to physicians.  The recommendations in this 
guidance may also be useful in communicating risk when no recall action is being taken but 
new information is available about ICDs.  These situations include communication about 
certain product updates, technical notes about product performance, recommended 
implantation techniques, or important labeling changes.  These types of communications 
should also follow these recommendations for consistency and to minimize the need for 
subsequent revisions.  
 
The recommendations contained in this guidance draw from FDAs own research, risk 
communication principles, and other efforts to standardize the information in Dear Doctor 
letters, including recommendations issued by the Heart Rhythm Society, Health Canada, and 
the United Kingdoms Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  They 
represent content elements demonstrated to be effective in conveying the most critical 
information sought by physicians in the event of a potential ICD failure.  This guidance is 
limited to implantable defibrillators; however, some of the concepts may be appropriately 
applied to other implanted devices including pacemakers, and external defibrillators. 
Research 
 
FDA has conducted several qualitative research studies to better understand the content, 
format, and sources that health care professionals find effective for conveying risk 
information on medical devices and which convey the need for appropriate action. These 
studies identified best practices for communicating with health care professionals about 
device failures as summarized below: 
 
a.  Present safety information in a consistent order.  Letters should lead with 
the name of the device and a plain-language description of the problem, 
including a clear description of deaths and serious adverse events. 
Recommended actions should be prominent and clearly identified.  
b.  Format letters about safety concerns for easy readability.  Use large font 
sizes, bold type to highlight critical information, high contrast, subheadings, 
bullets or a table format, and short, specific paragraphs. 
c.  Notify health care professionals about safety issues through multiple 
channels.  Use email, fax, express mail, and the Web. 
  3 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
d.  Make information about device failures available to health care 
professionals before patients hear about it in the media.  This helps them 
to be better equipped to address patients concerns and mitigate undue alarm. 
e.  Focus communications on the problem with the device and recommended 
actions for physicians.  Health care professionals perceive letters from 
manufacturers as less credible when they appear to focus on minimizing 
company liability rather than on safety concerns.  
f.  Avoid promotional statements about the company.  Health professionals 
want safety communications that are limited to information about patient care. 
Recommendations 
 
Dear Doctor letters should be issued in a timely manner so that physicians have the proper 
information to respond to patient inquiries generated by other public warnings, including 
recall letters, media reports, and trade publications.  Dear Doctor letters should be concise 
(less than two pages, when possible).  The letters should be formatted for easy readability, 
using large font sizes, bold type to highlight critical information, high contrast, subheadings, 
bullets or a table format, and short, specific paragraphs.  FDA recommends that companies 
avoid lengthy background information at the beginning of Dear Doctor letters.  Rather, they 
should provide only succinct descriptions of the problems and refer physicians to 
attachments containing full or more complex discussions, if necessary. Immediately 
following the brief description of the problem, letters should contain a bulleted list or table 
addressing each of the following areas of concern to physicians in order as they appear 
below: 
 
(cid:131)  What is the nature of the device malfunction or failure?   
This should include, whenever available: 
o  A detailed description of the failure mode and its root cause.  
o  An explanation of how the failure would manifest clinically. 
o  A description of the features of the ICD that are compromised by the device 
failure.  It is important to convey whether life-saving or life-sustaining 
therapies are affected, versus secondary therapies or diagnostics. 
 
(cid:131)  What is the scope or likelihood of the problem?   
This should include, whenever available: 
o  The number of active implants in the U.S. 
o  The number of devices that are already known to have exhibited the failure. 
o  The number of remaining devices that could be subject to the failure. 
o  Specific patient populations at higher risk for device failure. 
 
(cid:131)  What is the severity of the problem?   
This should include, whenever available: 
o  The number of deaths that have already occurred due to the device failure. 
o  The number of deaths that have occurred that are associated with the device 
failure, even if a direct causal link has not been established. 
  4 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
o  The number and type of injuries that have occurred that are associated with 
the device failure, even if a direct causal link has not been established. 
 
(cid:131)  Can the failure mode be observed or predicted in clinical follow-up?   
This should include, whenever available: 
o  An interrogation step or clinical test that can be used to identify devices that 
have already exhibited the failure mode. 
o  An interrogation step or clinical test that can be used to identify devices that 
have the potential to fail. 
o  A self-test that can be used by patients to determine whether their device has 
already exhibited the failure mode. 
 
(cid:131)  Can the failure mode be corrected in situ by reprogramming or upgrading the 
software?   
This should include, whenever available: 
o  A recommended follow-up schedule for patients whose devices are subject to 
the recall.  For example, should patients wait for their next scheduled visit to 
have the correction performed, or should they be directed to come in sooner?  
o  A clear explanation of whether the reprogramming step or software upgrade 
addresses the root cause of the problem, or whether it is an interim fix.   
o  A description of the adequacy of any interim fix in minimizing risks to the 
patient. 
 
(cid:131)  What is the recommended treatment for patients?   
This should include: 
o  A reminder that most devices will not fail (if that is supported by the facts).  
o  The percentage or number of devices that are expected (or not expected) to 
fail. 
o  A reminder that the term recall does not necessitate device removal. 
o  A reminder of the risks associated with device explantation and replacement. 
o  A recommended follow-up schedule for patients whose devices are subject to 
the recall. 
o  A recommendation to consider explantation if: 
(cid:131)  the failure mode is catastrophic (affecting life-saving or life-sustaining 
therapies),  
(cid:131)  the failure mode cannot be predicted by clinical tests or interrogation,  
(cid:131)  the failure mode cannot be fixed through reprogramming or other 
minimally-invasive procedures, and  
(cid:131)  the individual patient is dependent on the device. 
o  A recommendation to reprogram the device if the failure mode has a root 
cause that can be corrected through reprogramming. 
o  A recommendation to watch-and-wait if explantation or reprogramming is not 
warranted, for example, if the risks of explant outweigh the likelihood of 
failure. 
o  Any actions physicians may take to minimize risks to their patients. 
  5 Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
 
(cid:131)  What advice can physicians give to patients with affected devices? 
This should include: 
o  Company-recommended actions patients and health care providers can take to 
identify affected devices and/or recognize indications of device failure (i.e., 
audible sounds, physical reactions, etc.). 
o  A reminder that patients should keep routine follow-up appointments with 
their physicians. 
o  A list of symptoms that would warrant going immediately to the emergency 
room.  
o  Company contact information for consumers/patients (e.g., toll-free telephone 
number, email address, Web address). 
 
(cid:131)  What should be done with explanted devices? 
This should include: 
o  Instructions for returning any explanted devices to the manufacturer for 
analysis. 
 
(cid:131)  Where can health care professionals get additional information and updates? 
  This should include: 
o  Phone number and email address for company point-of-contact. 
o  Company Web address.  Dear Doctor letters should be posted and easy to find 
on the company Web site, along with updated information as it becomes 
available. 
     
In addition to these recommendations, the authors and editors of Dear Doctor letters for ICD 
recalls should also follow 21 CFR 7.49 Recall Communications and FDAs Guidance for 
Industry on Product Recalls, Including Removals and Corrections (11/3/03). 
Other Resources 
For more information, see: 
1.  21 CFR 7.49 Recall Communications  
2.  Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Device 
Performance Policies and Guidelines 
(http://www.hrsonline.org/uploadDocs/HRSTaskForceRecsFull.pdf). 
3.  Guidance for Industry on Product Recalls, Including Removals and Corrections 
(11/3/03) (http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/recalls/ggp_recall.htm).  
 
  6