Joshua Romero

Pacemaker Reuse An Initiative to Alleviate the Burden of Symptomatic Bradyarrhythmia in Impoverished Nations Around the World

> Health of body and mind is so fundamental to the good life that if we believe men have any personal rights at all as human beings, they have an absolute right to such a measure of good health as society and society alone is able to give them. > > —Aristotle, 330 bc For most of the industrialized world, the morbidity and mortality attributed to cardiovascular disease have declined in recent decades as a result of improvements in technology and a greater emphasis on primary and secondary preventative strategies.1 Unfortunately, this dramatic improvement in disease burden has not been witnessed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), defined by the World Bank as generating a gross national income per capita lower than US

Safety of pacemaker reuse a meta-analysis with implications for underserved nations

9200.2 Currently, cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of mortality worldwide, accounting for 30% of all global deaths,3 and it has twice the mortality rate of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined.4 Secondary treatments are often limited because of a paucity of skilled healthcare providers and, more important, the inability of the patient to afford costly medical procedures.5 This great disparity in medical health care is clearly evident in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation; this specialty is either severely underdeveloped or entirely nonexistent in many LMICs.6 As a result, many individuals with symptomatic bradycardia experience a decreased quality of life and/or decreased life expectancy because of a lack of resources (personal correspondence, University of Philippines–Philippine General Hospital [UP-PGH], November 15, 2008). As the epidemic of cardiovascular disease continues to alter the demographics of disease in LMICs, healthcare providers with access to medical technology must investigate novel methods of easing the burden of those less fortunate. The purpose of this article is to address the concept of postmortem pacemaker use for those in LMICs who otherwise …

Safety and efficacy of pacemaker reuse in underdeveloped nations: a case series.

Background— A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results— A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P =0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P =0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions— This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.Background—A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results—A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P=0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P=0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions—This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.

Cardiac implantable electronic device reutilization: battery life of explanted devices at a tertiary care center.

To the Editor: The morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been steadily declining in industrialized nations over recent decades due to innovations in technology and widespread access to health care; however, the prevalence of CVD is expected to increase 137%

Safety of Pacemaker Reutilization: A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Underserved Nations

Prior studies have suggested that pacemaker reuse may be a reasonable alternative to provide device therapy in the low‐ and middle‐income countries. We studied explant indications and remaining battery life of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) at a tertiary medical center.

Safety of Pacemaker ReuseClinical Perspective: A Meta-Analysis With Implications for Underserved Nations

Background— A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results— A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P =0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P =0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions— This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.Background—A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results—A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P=0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P=0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions—This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.

Safety of Pacemaker ReuseClinical Perspective

Background— A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results— A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P =0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P =0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions— This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.Background—A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results—A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P=0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P=0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions—This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Pacemaker Reuse: An Initiative to Alleviate the Burden of Symptomatic Bradyarrhythmia in Impoverished Nations Around the World”

Background— A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results— A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P =0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P =0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions— This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.Background—A large disparity in medical health care is clearly evident between developed and underserved nations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology, specifically pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to assess the safety of pacemaker reuse. Methods and Results—A computerized search from January 1, 1970, to September 1, 2010, identified 18 studies with outcomes of pacemaker reuse. The primary outcome was pacemaker infection or device erosion as defined by each individual study protocol. Secondary end points were device malfunction defined as a defect in the structural or electric integrity of the pulse generator. Pooled individual patient data (n=2270) from 18 trials were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients in whom an infection developed after pacemaker reuse was 1.97% (1.15% to 3.00%). There was no significant difference in infection rate between pacemaker reuse and new device implantation (odds ratio, 1.31 [0.50 to 3.40], P=0.580). The proportion of patients in whom device malfunction developed after pacemaker reuse was 0.68% (0.27% to 1.28%). Compared with new device implantation, there was an increased risk for malfunction in the reuse group (odds ratio, 5.80 [1.93 to 17.47], P=0.002). This difference was mainly driven by abnormalities in set screws, which possibly occurred during device extraction, as well as nonspecific device “technical errors.” Conclusions—This study suggests that pacemaker reuse has an overall low rate of infection and device malfunction and may be a safe and efficacious means of treating patients in underserved nations with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias and no other method of obtaining a device. However, the results also denote a higher rate of device malfunction as compared with new device implantation. Patients with highly symptomatic conduction disease may benefit from pacemaker reuse; however, they should be closely monitored for device malfunction, especially during implantation.

Societal views of pacemaker reutilization for those with untreated symptomatic bradycardia in underserved nations

We would like to thank Dr Syed Wamique Yusuf for his comments regarding “Pacemaker Reuse: an Initiative to Alleviate the Burden of Symptomatic Bradyarrhythmia in Impoverished Nations Around the World.”1 In addition, we applaud the great humanitarian efforts of Dr Yusuf, the Association of Pakistani-descent Cardiologists of North America, …