Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in Africa. We sought to compare the risk of infection and the rate of malfunction of re-used pacemakers and ICDs with new devices implanted at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Tow...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jama, Zimasa V, Chin, Ashley, Mayosi, Bongani M, Badri, Motasim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Clinics Cardive Publishing 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4683290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26407220
http://dx.doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2015-048
_version_ 1782406004170817536
author Jama, Zimasa V
Chin, Ashley
Mayosi, Bongani M
Badri, Motasim
author_facet Jama, Zimasa V
Chin, Ashley
Mayosi, Bongani M
Badri, Motasim
author_sort Jama, Zimasa V
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in Africa. We sought to compare the risk of infection and the rate of malfunction of re-used pacemakers and ICDs with new devices implanted at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. METHODS: This was a retrospective case comparison study of the performance of re-used pacemakers and ICDs in comparison with new devices implanted at Groote Schuur Hospital over a 10-year period. The outcomes were incidence of device infection, device malfunction, early battery depletion, and device removal due to infection, malfunction, or early battery depletion. RESULTS: Data for 126 devices implanted in 126 patients between 2003 and 2013 were analysed, of which 102 (81%) were pacemakers (51 re-used and 51 new) and 24 (19%) were ICDs (12 re-used and 12 new). There was no device infection, malfunction, early battery depletion or device removal in either the re-used or new pacemaker groups over the median follow up of 15.1 months [interquartile range (IQR), 1.3–36.24 months] for the re-used pacemakers, and 55.8 months (IQR, 20.3–77.8 months) for the new pacemakers. In the ICD group, no device infection occurred over a median follow up of 35.9 months (IQR, 17.0–70.9 months) for the re-used ICDs and 45.7 months (IQR, 37.6–53.7 months) for the new ICDs. One device delivered inappropriate shocks, which resolved without intervention and with no harm to the patient. This re-used ICD subsequently needed generator replacement 14 months later. In both the pacemaker and ICD groups, there were no procedure-non-related infections documented for the respective follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in performance between re-used and new pacemakers and ICDs with regard to infection rates, device malfunction, battery life and device removal for complications. Pacemaker and ICD re-use is feasible and safe and is a viable option for patients with bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrthythmias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4683290
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Clinics Cardive Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46832902016-02-10 Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa Jama, Zimasa V Chin, Ashley Mayosi, Bongani M Badri, Motasim Cardiovasc J Afr Cardiovascular Topics OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in Africa. We sought to compare the risk of infection and the rate of malfunction of re-used pacemakers and ICDs with new devices implanted at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. METHODS: This was a retrospective case comparison study of the performance of re-used pacemakers and ICDs in comparison with new devices implanted at Groote Schuur Hospital over a 10-year period. The outcomes were incidence of device infection, device malfunction, early battery depletion, and device removal due to infection, malfunction, or early battery depletion. RESULTS: Data for 126 devices implanted in 126 patients between 2003 and 2013 were analysed, of which 102 (81%) were pacemakers (51 re-used and 51 new) and 24 (19%) were ICDs (12 re-used and 12 new). There was no device infection, malfunction, early battery depletion or device removal in either the re-used or new pacemaker groups over the median follow up of 15.1 months [interquartile range (IQR), 1.3–36.24 months] for the re-used pacemakers, and 55.8 months (IQR, 20.3–77.8 months) for the new pacemakers. In the ICD group, no device infection occurred over a median follow up of 35.9 months (IQR, 17.0–70.9 months) for the re-used ICDs and 45.7 months (IQR, 37.6–53.7 months) for the new ICDs. One device delivered inappropriate shocks, which resolved without intervention and with no harm to the patient. This re-used ICD subsequently needed generator replacement 14 months later. In both the pacemaker and ICD groups, there were no procedure-non-related infections documented for the respective follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in performance between re-used and new pacemakers and ICDs with regard to infection rates, device malfunction, battery life and device removal for complications. Pacemaker and ICD re-use is feasible and safe and is a viable option for patients with bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrthythmias. Clinics Cardive Publishing 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4683290/ /pubmed/26407220 http://dx.doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2015-048 Text en Copyright © 2015 Clinics Cardive Publishing http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Topics
Jama, Zimasa V
Chin, Ashley
Mayosi, Bongani M
Badri, Motasim
Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa
title Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa
title_full Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa
title_fullStr Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa
title_full_unstemmed Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa
title_short Performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa
title_sort performance of re-used pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with new devices at groote schuur hospital in cape town, south africa
topic Cardiovascular Topics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4683290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26407220
http://dx.doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2015-048
work_keys_str_mv AT jamazimasav performanceofreusedpacemakersandimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorscomparedwithnewdevicesatgrooteschuurhospitalincapetownsouthafrica
AT chinashley performanceofreusedpacemakersandimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorscomparedwithnewdevicesatgrooteschuurhospitalincapetownsouthafrica
AT mayosibonganim performanceofreusedpacemakersandimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorscomparedwithnewdevicesatgrooteschuurhospitalincapetownsouthafrica
AT badrimotasim performanceofreusedpacemakersandimplantablecardioverterdefibrillatorscomparedwithnewdevicesatgrooteschuurhospitalincapetownsouthafrica