Eliane Molina Psaltikidis1, Eliana Auxiliadora Magalhães Costa2, Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano3. 1. Hospital Epidemiology Department - Hospital Infection Control and Health Technology Assessment Department, Clinical Hospital of the University of Campinas - Unicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil. 2. Life Sciences Department, Bahia State University, Salvador, BA, Brazil. 3. University of São Paulo - USP. Nursing School. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have reduced mortality and improved the quality of life of cardiac patients. However, the high cost of these devices prevents their large-scale incorporation, particularly in low-income countries, where reusing explanted PMs/ICDs has become an alternative. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted of studies that compare infection rates, device-related deaths, malfunction and premature battery depletion in patients with reused PM and ICD implants and those with new devices. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant intergroup differences in infection rates (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.60-1.60), device malfunction (OR 1.58; 95% CI 0.56-4.48) or premature battery depletion (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.81-4.72) and no device-related deaths. Based on GRADE assessment, confidence in estimates for the outcomes infection rate and device-related death was rated as moderate. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis enabled us to conclude that PMs and ICDs can be safely and effectively reused. As such, every effort should be made to overcome regulatory, technical and ethical barriers to ensure implantation.
BACKGROUND: Pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have reduced mortality and improved the quality of life of cardiac patients. However, the high cost of these devices prevents their large-scale incorporation, particularly in low-income countries, where reusing explanted PMs/ICDs has become an alternative. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted of studies that compare infection rates, device-related deaths, malfunction and premature battery depletion in patients with reused PM and ICD implants and those with new devices. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant intergroup differences in infection rates (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.60-1.60), device malfunction (OR 1.58; 95% CI 0.56-4.48) or premature battery depletion (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.81-4.72) and no device-related deaths. Based on GRADE assessment, confidence in estimates for the outcomes infection rate and device-related death was rated as moderate. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis enabled us to conclude that PMs and ICDs can be safely and effectively reused. As such, every effort should be made to overcome regulatory, technical and ethical barriers to ensure implantation.