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

Abstract

BackgroundPatients go without pacemaker, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapies (devices) each year due to the prohibitive costs of devices.ObjectiveWe sought to examine data available from studies regarding contemporary risks of reused devices in comparison with new devices.MethodsWe searched online indexing sites to identify recent studies. Peerâ reviewed manuscripts reporting infection, malfunction, premature battery depletion, and deviceâ 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.ResultsNine observational studies (published 2009â 2017) were identified totaling 2,302 devices (2,017 pacemakers, 285 defibrillators). Five controlled trials were included in metaâ 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 followâ up were similar. There were no deviceâ 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.ConclusionsDevice reuse utilizing modern protocols did not significantly increase risk of infection, malfunction, premature battery depletion, or deviceâ related death in observational studies. These data provide rationale for proceeding with a prospective multicenter noninferiority randomized control trial.