Literature DB >> 21249438

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

Lindsey Gakenheimer1, Dave C Lange, Joshua Romero, James N Kirkpatrick, Patricia Sovitch, Hakan Oral, Kim A Eagle, Timir S Baman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Significant healthcare disparities exist between the developed world and low and middle income countries (LMIC), specifically in the field of cardiac electrophysiology. As a result, pacemaker reutilization has been proposed as a viable option for those in LMIC and no other means of obtaining a device. Little data exist regarding the feasibility of establishing a reuse program in addition to understanding the views of society on device reutilization. This study investigated the views of funeral directors, patients with cardiac devices, and members of the general population regarding reutilization of previously implanted pacemakers.
METHODS: Ninety funeral directors in Michigan were surveyed regarding current practice as well as preferences for post-mortem device disposal. One hundred and fourteen patients with devices and 1,009 members of the general population were surveyed regarding post-mortem device handling.
RESULTS: Funeral directors had an average of 21 years of experience with an annual volume of 120 deceased persons per year, with a cremation rate of 35%. When asked about disposal methods of explanted devices, the majority of devices (84%) were discarded as medical waste or stored with no intended purpose, with a total of 171 devices currently in possession at the funeral homes. Eighty-nine percent of funeral directors expressed a desire to donate devices for reuse in LMIC and 10% acknowledged previous device donation. Eighty-seven percent of device patients and 71% of the general population also expressed a desire to donate devices.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our survey show that a large percentage of funeral directors, patients with implantable devices, and members of the general population support a pacemaker reutilization initiative. This study lends further evidence that collection of devices for reuse is feasible and that establishing a framework for regional pacemaker reutilization program is warranted. If successful, the feasibility of this model should be investigated in other parts of the country in order to alleviate the burden of untreated symptomatic bradycardia in our world.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21249438     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-010-9534-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  21 in total

1.  Postmortem analysis and retrieval of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators.

Authors:  James N Kirkpatrick; Martin C Burke; Bradley P Knight
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-04-13       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Global inequalities in access to cardiovascular health care: our greatest challenge.

Authors:  Rohina Joshi; Stephen Jan; Yangfeng Wu; Stephen MacMahon
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Survival and mortality in 3,701 pacemaker patients: arguments in favor of pacemaker reuse.

Authors:  J Mugica; R Duconge; L Henry
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 1.976

4.  [Reuse of pacemaker generators].

Authors:  R Costa; L F Moreira; P M Pêgo-Fernandes; M M Martinelli Filho; N A Stolf; G Verginelli; F Pileggi
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Reuse of pacemaker.

Authors:  M Panja; C N Sarkar; S Kumar; A K Kar; S Mitra; D P Sinha; A Chatterjee; S Roy; N C Sarkar; B Majumder
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec

6.  Reuse of permanent cardiac pacemakers.

Authors:  M D Rosengarten; D Portnoy; R C Chiu; A K Paterson
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1985-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  The refurbished pulse generator.

Authors:  H Mond; S Tartaglia; A Cole; G Sloman
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1980-05       Impact factor: 1.976

8.  A prospective trial of new versus refurbished cardiac pacemakers: a Canadian experience.

Authors:  M Rosengarten; R Chiu; R Hoffman
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 5.223

9.  Refurbishing pacemakers: a viable approach.

Authors:  R Anilkumar; J Balachander
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2004-01-01

10.  Re-use of explanted DDD pacemakers as VDD- clinical utility and cost effectiveness.

Authors:  K K N Namboodiri; Y P Sharma; H K Bali; A Grover
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2004-01-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  Project My Heart Your Heart: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.

Authors:  Kim A Eagle; Thomas C Crawford; Timir Baman
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2015

2.  Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa.

Authors:  Zimasa V Jama; Ashley Chin; Motasim Badri; Bongani M Mayosi
Journal:  Cardiovasc J Afr       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.167

Review 3.  Pacemaker recycling: A notion whose time has come.

Authors:  Mason W Runge; Timir S Baman; Sheldon Davis; Kevin Weatherwax; Ed Goldman; Kim A Eagle; Thomas C Crawford
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2017-04-26
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.