Why the study?
Reuse of post-mortem resterilized pacemakers and defibrillators has been undertaken in limited-resource settings, but uncertainty around infection risk remained a concern.
Does the use of resterilized and reused pacemakers and defibrillators increase the risk of infection or device-related death in patients in underserved countries compared to new devices?
Does the use of resterilized and reused pacemakers and defibrillators increase the risk of infection or device-related death in patients in underserved countries compared to new devices?
Resterilized and reused pacemakers and defibrillators have a similar 2-year risk of infection or device-related death compared to new devices, supporting their safe use in resource-limited settings.
Comparable infection rates with reused devices warrant caution; leaves open safe adoption pending randomized trials.
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. 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khairy et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: