Heart Rhythm Society Members’ Views on Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reuse of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) may help address the unmet need among patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: To examine Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) physicians' opinions regarding CIED reuse, an online survey eliciting attitudes toward CIED reuse was sent to all 3,380 HRS physician members. RESULTS: There were 429 responses (response rate 13%). A large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that resterilization of devices for reimplantation in patients who cannot afford new devices may be safe (370, 87%) and, if proven to be safe, would be ethical (375, 88%). A total of 340 (81%) respondents would be comfortable asking their patients to consider donating their device, and 353 (84%) would be willing to reimplant a resterilized device if it were legal. The most commonly cited concerns about device reuse were infection (270, 64%) and device malfunction (125, 29%). Respondents from the United States and Canada had more favorable impressions of device reuse than respondents from other high-income countries (P < 0.05 for three of five positive statements regarding reuse), and were less likely to cite ethical concerns (P < 0.001). However, when responses from all high-income countries were compared with lower- and upper-middle income countries, there were no significant differences in the rates of approval. CONCLUSIONS: HRS survey respondents support the concept of CIED reuse for patients in LMICs who cannot afford new devices. Studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy and safety of this practice and to identify potential barriers to adoption among physicians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".