Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41604164›Full record

SynthesisEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026

Reprocessing of single-use medical devices in cardiology: a systematic literature review of safety and performance characteristics applied to cardiac electrophysiology.

Samantha Huynh, Fiona Murphy, Brigitte Sabatier, Judith Pineau, Fabrice Extramiana, Estelle Gandjbakhch, Nicolas Lellouche, Tess Martin, Eloi Marijon, Nicolas Martelli

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Samantha HuynhDepartment of Pharmacy, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0009-0002-2171-3539
Fiona MurphyDepartment of Pharmacy, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0009-0006-8796-1104
Brigitte SabatierDepartment of Pharmacy, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1643-2070
Judith PineauDepartment of Pharmacy, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Fabrice ExtramianaGroupe Parisien Universitaire de Rythmologie (GPUR/AP-HP), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8123-4842
Estelle GandjbakhchGroupe Parisien Universitaire de Rythmologie (GPUR/AP-HP), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4846-5021
Nicolas LelloucheGroupe Parisien Universitaire de Rythmologie (GPUR/AP-HP), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8462-2218
Tess MartinDepartment of Pharmacy, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1839-4306
Eloi MarijonGroupe Parisien Universitaire de Rythmologie (GPUR/AP-HP), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7227-3428
Nicolas MartelliDepartment of Pharmacy, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5959-231X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe rising burden of cardiovascular diseases, especially atrial fibrillation, has increased demand for electrophysiology (EP) procedures in Europe, driving greater reliance on disposable devices like diagnostic and ablation catheters. Reprocessing single-use medical devices offers potential economic and environmental benefits, yet concerns persist regarding device integrity and safety. Under the European Union Medical Device Regulation, reprocessing is permitted if national laws allow it; however, implementation varies across Member States. This systematic literature review evaluates the safety and performance of reprocessed cardiac EP catheters originally intended for single use. METHODS AND

resultsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, literature searches of PubMed and Embase identified in vitro and in vivo studies that examined the safety and functionality of reprocessed EP catheters. Key outcomes included infection risk, device sterility, mechanical and electrical integrity, and adverse events. Twelve studies (four in vivo and eight in vitro) involving >1200 patients and multiple catheter brands were included. Under stringent reprocessing protocols, reprocessed EP catheters showed comparable safety and mechanical performance to new devices. However, gaps remain in evidence regarding prion and fungal contamination, the maximum number of safe reprocessing cycles, and the detection of rare complications.

conclusionThe absence of adverse events and reliable performance associated with reprocessed EP catheters reported in this study may encourage European countries that have not yet authorized single-use medical device reprocessing to consider its adoption. However, the broader implementation of this practice remains contingent on its applicability and logistical feasibility within each national context.

Indexed as

Cardiac CathetersDisposable EquipmentElectrophysiologic Techniques, CardiacEquipment ContaminationEquipment ReuseEquipment DesignEquipment SafetyEuropeHumansRisk FactorsAtrial fibrillationCatheter ablationElectrophysiology cathetersMedical Device RegulationPerformanceReprocessingSafetySingle-use medical device

Identifiers

PMID41604164
PMCPMC12849812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.