Reprocessing and Reuse of Single-Use Medical Devices Used During Hemodynamic Procedures in Brazil: A Widespread and Largely Overlooked Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several medical devices used during hemodynamic procedures, particularly angiographic diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheters, are manufactured for single use only. However, reprocessing and reuse of these devices has been reported, to determine the frequency of reuse and reprocessing of single-use medical devices used during hemodynamic procedures in Brazil and to evaluate how reprocessing is performed. DESIGN: National survey, conducted from December 1999 to July 2001. METHODS: Most of the institutions affiliated with the Brazilian Society of Hemodynamic and Interventional Cardiology were surveyed by use of a questionnaire sent in the mail. RESULTS: The questionnaire response rate was 50% (119 of 240 institutions). Of the 119 institutions that responded, 116 (97%) reported reuse of single-use devices used during hemodynamic procedures, and only 26 (22%) reported use of a standardized reprocessing protocol. Cleaning, flushing, rinsing, drying, sterilizing and packaging methods varied greatly and were mostly inadequate. Criteria for discarding reused devices varied widely. Of the 119 institutions that responded, 80 (67%) reported having a surveillance system for adverse events associated with the reuse of medical devices, although most of these institutions did not routinely review the data, and only 38 (32%) described a training program for the personnel who reprocessed single-use devices. CONCLUSIONS: The reuse of single-use devices used during hemodynamic procedures was very frequent in hospitals in Brazil. Basic guidance on how to reuse and reprocess single-use medical devices is urgently needed, because, despite the lack of studies to support reusing and reprocessing single-use medical devices, such devices are necessary in limited-resource areas in which these practices are current.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".