Societal views of pacemaker reutilization for those with untreated symptomatic bradycardia in underserved nations.
OBJECTIVE
Significant healthcare disparities exist between the developed world and low and middle income countries (LMIC), specifically in the field of cardiac electrophysiology. As a result, pacemaker reutilization has been proposed as a viable option for those in LMIC and no other means of obtaining a device. Little data exist regarding the feasibility of establishing a reuse program in addition to understanding the views of society on device reutilization. This study investigated the views of funeral directors, patients with cardiac devices, and members of the general population regarding reutilization of previously implanted pacemakers.


METHODS
Ninety funeral directors in Michigan were surveyed regarding current practice as well as preferences for post-mortem device disposal. One hundred and fourteen patients with devices and 1,009 members of the general population were surveyed regarding post-mortem device handling.


RESULTS
Funeral directors had an average of 21 years of experience with an annual volume of 120 deceased persons per year, with a cremation rate of 35%. When asked about disposal methods of explanted devices, the majority of devices (84%) were discarded as medical waste or stored with no intended purpose, with a total of 171 devices currently in possession at the funeral homes. Eighty-nine percent of funeral directors expressed a desire to donate devices for reuse in LMIC and 10% acknowledged previous device donation. Eighty-seven percent of device patients and 71% of the general population also expressed a desire to donate devices.


CONCLUSIONS
The results of our survey show that a large percentage of funeral directors, patients with implantable devices, and members of the general population support a pacemaker reutilization initiative. This study lends further evidence that collection of devices for reuse is feasible and that establishing a framework for regional pacemaker reutilization program is warranted. If successful, the feasibility of this model should be investigated in other parts of the country in order to alleviate the burden of untreated symptomatic bradycardia in our world.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Lindsey
L
Gakenheimer
Dave C
DC
Lange
Joshua
J
Romero
James N
JN
Kirkpatrick
Patricia
P
Sovitch
Hakan
H
Oral
Kim A
KA
Eagle
Timir S
TS
Baman
D001919:Bradycardia / Q000628:therapy*; D002102:Cadaver; D003710:Demography; D003906:Developing Countries; D017743:Equipment Reuse; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D017744:Medical Waste Disposal; D008824:Michigan; D008875:Middle Aged; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial / Q000706:statistics & numerical data* / Q000600:supply & distribution; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011639:Public Opinion; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
D017744:Medical Waste Disposal
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Dec 2;52(23):1817-1825
19038678
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008 Sep;31(9):1202-12
18834475
N Engl J Med. 2006 Apr 13;354(15):1649-50
16611964
Heart Rhythm. 2006 Oct;3(10):1250-73
17018366
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1986 Nov;9(6 Pt 2):1295-8
2432550
Eur Heart J. 1998 Jan;19(1):154-7
9503189
Heart Rhythm. 2010 Nov;7(11):1623-7
20430113
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2004 Jan 01;4(1):1-2
16943882
Circulation. 2010 Oct 19;122(16):1649-56
20956239
Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Aug 15;133(4):279-83
4016637
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1986 Nov;9(6 Pt 2):1282-7
2432548
Can J Cardiol. 1989 Apr;5(3):155-60
2655847
Heart Rhythm. 2009 Oct;6(10):1538-40
19729348
Indian Heart J. 1996 Nov-Dec;48(6):677-80
9062017
Indian Heart J. 1992 Mar-Apr;44(2):91-3
1427938
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Oct 13;54(16):1557-8
19815129
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2004 Jan 01;4(1):3-9
16943883
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1980 May;3(3):311-7
6160525
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010 Jan;33(1):e8-9
19793365
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007 May;18(5):478-82
17313530
Arq Bras Cardiol. 1983 May;40(5):317-8
6651564