Document Detail

Management of recalled pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a decision analysis model.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  16868299     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
CONTEXT: Limited information exists to direct clinical management after an implantable device has been put under advisory. A better understanding of the risks and benefits of device replacement compared with continued clinical follow-up would be helpful to clinicians.
OBJECTIVE: Using the tools of decision analysis, to determine the best management approach (immediate device replacement vs continued monitoring) in the setting of a device advisory.
DESIGN: A decision model was constructed to evaluate the risks and benefits associated with immediate device replacement compared with continued monitoring.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variables considered included indications for device implantation, anticipated course following device failure, device failure rates from the advisory ranging from 0.0001% to 1.0% per year, and device replacement mortality rates ranging from 0.10% to 1.00% per procedure. Device replacement was preferred to continued follow-up when replacement led to greater patient survival.
RESULTS: The decision to replace a recalled device depends primarily on the advisory's estimated device failure rate and the likely effects of device failure on mortality. Procedural mortality is an important secondary factor, while patient age and remaining generator life have the least influence on the decision. For pacemaker-dependent patients, advisory device failure rates exceeding 0.3% warrant device replacement in most situations. In patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary or secondary prevention, a failure rate associated with an advisory of 3.0% is needed to favor replacement in most cases, decreasing to close to 1.0% as procedural mortality rates decrease to 0.1% or risk of fatal arrhythmias increase to near 20% per year. In cases of pacemaker implantation for non-life-threatening situations (eg, carotid sinus hypersensitivity), most device advisories do not warrant device replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: The decision to replace a device under advisory is determined primarily by the incidence of device malfunction and the likely effects of device failure. This analysis provides a framework for managing recalled devices in the context of device, patient, and institutional characteristics.
Mitesh S Amin; David B Matchar; Mark A Wood; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Related Documents :
6189059 - Clinical evaluation of a single-pass implantable electrode for all modes of pacing. the...
9778329 - Potential benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with ...
9354539 - Modified norwood operation for single left ventricle and ventriculoarterial discordance...
9558689 - Cardiac rehabilitation in patients with rate responsive pacemakers.
17720399 - Autologous right atrial wall patch for closure of atrial septal defects.
22578629 - Use of amides as cryoprotectants in extenders for frozen sperm of tambaqui, colossoma m...
25443939 - Dorsal plication without degloving is safe and effective for correcting ventral penile ...
22241679 - Comparison of medical costs among patients using adalimumab and infliximab: a retrospec...
21051459 - Influence of distance from home to invasive centre on invasive treatment after acute co...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  JAMA     Volume:  296     ISSN:  1538-3598     ISO Abbreviation:  JAMA     Publication Date:  2006 Jul 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2006-07-26     Completed Date:  2006-08-01     Revised Date:  2014-09-17    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7501160     Medline TA:  JAMA     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  412-20     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Decision Support Techniques*
Defibrillators, Implantable* / adverse effects
Device Approval
Equipment Failure
Markov Chains
Pacemaker, Artificial* / adverse effects
Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
Risk Assessment / methods

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Accuracy of 16-row multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis.
Next Document:  Effect of youth-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus on incidence of end-stage renal disease and mortality...