Literature DB >> 24359248

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

Lindsey Gakenheimer1, Joshua Romero, Timir S Baman, Dan Montgomery, Cydni A Smith, Hakan Oral, Kim A Eagle, Thomas Crawford.   

Abstract

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. ©2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  defibrillation - ICD; pacing

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24359248     DOI: 10.1111/pace.12321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  3 in total

1.  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

2.  A Community Level Sample Survey to Determine CurrentUnderstanding About Medical Recycling of Cardiovascular ImplantableElectronic Devices.

Authors:  Milan Mahesh; Munish Sharma; Daniel An Mascarenhas
Journal:  Cardiol Res       Date:  2018-08-10

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.