Safety, Efficacy, and Performance of Implanted Recycled Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) Devices in Underprivileged Patients

Global disparities in arrhythmia care: Mind the gap

Delivery of comprehensive arrhythmia care requires the simultaneous presence of many resources. These include complex hospital infrastructure, expensive implantable equipment, and expert personnel. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), at least 1 of these components is often missing, resulting in a gap between the demand for arrhythmia care and the capacity to supply care. In addition to this treatment gap, there exists a training gap, as many clinicians in LMICs have limited access to formal training in cardiac electrophysiology. Given the progressive increase in the burden of cardiovascular diseases in LMICs, these patient care and clinical training gaps will widen unless further actions are taken to build capacity. Several strategies for building arrhythmia care capacity in LMICs have been described. Medical missions can provide donations of both equipment and clinical expertise but are only intermittently present and therefore are not optimized to provide the longitudinal support needed to create self-sustaining infrastructure. Use of donated or reprocessed equipment (eg, cardiac implantable electronic devices) can reduce procedural costs but does not address the need for infrastructure, including diagnostics and expert personnel. Collaborative efforts involving multiple stakeholders (eg, professional organizations, government agencies, hospitals, and educational institutions) have the potential to provide longitudinal support of both patient care and clinician education in LMICs.

Infections Associated with Resterilized Pacemakers and Defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Access to pacemakers and defibrillators is problematic in places with limited resources. Resterilization and reuse of implantable cardiac devices obtained post mortem from patients in wealthier nations have been undertaken, but uncertainty around the risk of infection is a concern.

METHODS

A multinational program was initiated in 1983 to provide tested and resterilized pacemakers and defibrillators to underserved nations; a prospective registry was established in 2003. Patients who received reused devices in this program were matched in a 1:3 ratio with control patients who received new devices implanted in Canada. The primary outcome was infection or device-related death, with mortality from other causes modeled as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Resterilized devices were implanted in 1051 patients (mean [±SD] age, 63.2±18.5 years; 43.6% women) in Mexico (36.0%), the Dominican Republic (28.1%), Guatemala (26.6%), and Honduras (9.3%). Overall, 85% received pacemakers and 15% received defibrillators, with one (55.5%), two (38.8%), or three (5.7%) leads. Baseline characteristics did not differ between these patients and the 3153 matched control patients. At 2 years of follow-up, infections had occurred in 21 patients (2.0%) with reused devices and in 38 (1.2%) with new devices (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 2.83; P = 0.06); there were no device-related deaths. The most common implicated pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients in underserved countries who received a resterilized and reused pacemaker or defibrillator, the incidence of infection or device-related death at 2 years was 2.0%, an incidence that did not differ significantly from that seen among matched control patients with new devices in Canada.

Worldwide pacemaker and defibrillator reuse: Systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary trials

BACKGROUND

Patients go without pacemaker, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapies (devices) each year due to the prohibitive costs of devices.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine data available from studies regarding contemporary risks of reused devices in comparison with new devices.

METHODS

We searched online indexing sites to identify recent studies. Peer-reviewed manuscripts reporting infection, malfunction, premature battery depletion, and device-related death with reused devices were included. The primary study outcome was the composite risk of infection, malfunction, premature battery depletion, and death. Secondary outcomes were the individual risks.

RESULTS

Nine observational studies (published 2009-2017) were identified totaling 2,302 devices (2,017 pacemakers, 285 defibrillators). Five controlled trials were included in meta-analysis (2,114 devices; 1,258 new vs 856 reused). All device reuse protocols employed interrogation to confirm longevity and functionality, disinfectant therapy, and, usually, additional biocidal agents, packaging, and ethylene oxide gas sterilization. Demographic characteristics, indications for pacing, and median follow-up were similar. There were no device-related deaths reported and no statistically significant difference in risk between new versus reused devices for the primary outcome (2.23% vs 3.86% respectively, P = 0.807, odds ratio = 0.76). There were no significant differences seen in the secondary outcomes for the individual risks of infection, malfunction, and premature battery depletion.

CONCLUSIONS

Device reuse utilizing modern protocols did not significantly increase risk of infection, malfunction, premature battery depletion, or device-related death in observational studies. These data provide rationale for proceeding with a prospective multicenter noninferiority randomized control trial.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device function and longevity at autopsy: an underestimated resource

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and safety of postmortem cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED; pacemaker or defibrillator) retrieval for reuse has been shown. To date, studies indicate a low yield of reusable postmortem CIEDs (17%-30%).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a higher rate of reusable CIEDs would be identified upon postmortem retrieval when an institutional protocol for systematic and routine acquisition, interrogation, reprogramming, and manufacturer analysis was used.

METHODS

Over a 6-year period, all subjects referred for autopsy underwent concomitant CIED pulse generator retrieval and enrollment in the Johns Hopkins Post-Mortem CIED Registry. CIEDs were interrogated, reprogrammed, and submitted for manufacturer analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 84 autopsies had CIEDs (37 pacemakers, 47 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators). CIEDs were implanted 2.84 ± 2.32 years before death, with 30% implanted <1 year before death. Overall, CIED postmortem longevity was 4.79 ± 3.41 years, with 56% demonstrating longevity ≥4 years (this group had an estimated mean longevity of 7.37 ± 2.44 years). Manufacturer analyses uncovered 2 falsely triggered elective replacement indication alerts, confirmed 5 correctly triggered elective replacement indication alerts, identified a recalled pacemaker, and verified that a defibrillator had undergone nonprogrammable hard reset.

CONCLUSION

When a protocol for systematic and routine postmortem CIED retrieval, interrogation, reprogramming, and analysis was used, we noted that >60% of pacemakers and >50% of defibrillators demonstrated normal functional status with projected longevities >7 years on average. Formation of a national hospital-based "CIED donor network" would facilitate larger scale charitable efforts in underserved countries.

Reuse of infected cardiac rhythm management devices in the same patients: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

In developing countries, patients with a cardiac rhythm management device (CRMD) that has become infected cannot always afford a new device, and reuse of the infected CRMD may be appropriate. To evaluate the safety of this practice, a cohort of consecutive patients with reused pacemakers was compared with a control group.

METHODS

A single-center cohort of consecutive patients treated from 2007 to 2012 was analyzed in a two-way noninferiority study. Patients who had infected CRMDs removed at the Cardiovascular Center of The Peking University People's Hospital were enrolled, including those who had the same CRMD reimplanted and those who had a new CRMD implanted.

RESULTS

This study included 212 patients, of who 99 (study group) had the same CRMD reimplanted, and 113 (control group) had a new CRMD implanted. During a mean follow-up period of 3.52 years (interquartile range: 2.1-4.7 years), 10 patients reached the primary end point of the study (infection, unexpected battery depletion, or device malfunction), including five (5%) in the study group and five (4.3%) in the control group. Recurrent infection occurred in three patients in the study group and two patients in the control group (3.0% vs 1.7%, relative risk: 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-2.29, P = 0.561). There were no cases of unexpected battery depletion in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Reuse of infected CRMDs in the same patients is noninferior to the implantation of new devices. In developing countries without full medical coverage, careful reuse of infected CRMDs can be considered.

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

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective review of all CIEDs extracted at the University of Michigan between 2007 and 2011. Devices were considered reusable if battery longevity was ≥48 months or >75% battery life was remaining; there was no evidence of electrical malfunction, and they were not under advisory or recall. Eight hundred and one CIEDs were explanted: Medtronic (MDT [Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA]; 454), Boston Scientific (BS [Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, MA, USA])/Guidant (GDT; 255 [Guidant Corp., St. Paul, MN, USA]), St. Jude Medical (SJM; 73 [St. Paul, MN, USA]), and Biotronik (BTK; 15 [Biotronik GmBH, Berlin, Germany]). After eliminating devices explanted for elective replacement indicator (ERI, 541), 51.9% of pacemakers (41/79), 54.2% of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) (64/118), and 47.6% of cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillation (CRT-D) devices (30/63) had sufficient battery life and no evidence of electrical malfunction to be considered for reuse. A logistic regression analysis found that the indications for device removal independently predicted reusability: upgrade to an ICD (odds ratio [OR] 162.8, P < 0.001) or CRT-D (OR 63.8, P < 0.001), infection (OR 110.7, P < 0.001), heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device placement (OR 56.6, P < 0.001), and device removal at patient's request (OR 115.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The majority of explanted CIEDs for reasons other than ERI have an adequate battery life and, if proven safe, may conceivably be reutilized for basic pacing in underserved nations where access to this life-saving therapy is limited.

Patient preferences regarding device reuse and potential of devices for reuse - a study in a veteran population

BACKGROUND

Many cardiac patients need and undergo device implants. Veterans' preferences regarding post-mortem handling of devices are not known. Cardiac patients in low- and middle-income countries who need but cannot afford devices rely on donations. Charitable organizations have successfully provided devices for reuse to such patients.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the number of devices with potential for possible reuse in a veteran population.

METHODS

Between January and December 2008, at a tertiary medical center, veterans with implanted cardiac devices were surveyed using a questionnaire for their preferences regarding post-mortem handling. One choice was donation to charity for reuse. Although altruistic, it is unclear what percent of such devices have reuse potential. Retrospective chart review of veterans who underwent device implants between 1992 and 2007 identified a cohort of patients with Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICDs) who had died by April 31st 2009. In this cohort, ICDs implanted in the year preceding the patient's death were counted as having reuse potential.

RESULTS

94 of 97 veterans completed the survey. 56% were unaware of how devices are handled after death. The top three preferences for postmortem handling were: return to manufacturer, return to hospital and donation for reuse. 88% were willing to sign an advance device directive. Retrospective review identified 161 veterans who had received 301 ICDs. Of these, 77 ICDs (25%) had median reuse potential of 3.1 years.

CONCLUSION

In a VA cohort of deceased patients a substantial proportion of devices had reuse potential. Further research is needed to direct health policy.

Feasibility of postmortem device acquisition for potential reuse in underserved nations

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present study was to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a program to acquire devices with adequate battery life from crematories and funeral homes for potential reutilization in underserved nations.

BACKGROUND

There exists a great health-care disparity between the industrialized world and underserved nations--specifically in the frequency of pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Flyers were mailed to all 1057 members of the Michigan Funeral Directors Association providing information to download a consent-for-explant form and request a postage-paid envelope from www.myheartyourheart.org in order to send explanted devices. Donated devices from funeral homes and crematories nationwide were also collected from World Medical Relief. Adequate battery life was defined as ≥75% or ≥4 years of estimated longevity.

RESULTS

A total of 3176 devices (65% pacemakers, 21% implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICDs], 12% biventricular ICDs, and 3% biventricular pacemakers) were donated to the reutilization program. Five hundred fifty devices (21%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.4-22.6%) were found to have an acceptable battery life for reutilization. Among these devices, 313 were pacemakers (17.9%; 95% CI 16.1-19.8%), 118 were ICDs (17.9%; 95% CI 15.1-21.1%), 112 were biventricular ICDs (30.3%; 95% CI 25.6-35.2%), and 7 were biventricular pacemakers (17.3%; 95% CI 16.0-18.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 21% of donated devices and 30% of donated biventricular ICDs possess an adequate battery life for potential reuse. Device donations from funeral homes and crematories appear to be a potential resource for device reutilization for those in need in underserved nations.