ArticleEuropace : 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
Electrophysiology consumables procurement in Europe: implications for access, innovation and value-based care.
Article 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo examine and compare public procurement systems for electrophysiology (EP) consumables across 21 European countries, focusing on governance level, evaluation methods, clinician involvement, reimbursement variability, access to innovation, and sustainability integration. METHODS AND
resultsA qualitative, exploratory design was employed using 22 semi-structured interviews with EP clinicians, procurement specialists, and health system stakeholders across 21 countries. Interview transcripts and summaries were thematically coded by two independent researchers using a structured six-domain framework. Substantial heterogeneity in procurement practices was identified. Hospital-level procurement predominates in 43% of countries, while 33% use regional-level tenders; a minority operate national-level frameworks. Evaluation methods vary, with several countries using price-driven criteria, while others apply mixed or clinically weighted models. Clinician involvement is high or moderate in two-thirds of countries but often informal or lacking governance structure. Reimbursement for EP procedures varies widely in scope and transparency, with bundled and global budget models affecting innovation uptake. Innovation access remains uneven: countries such as Austria, the Netherlands, and France use innovation funds or dedicated pathways, while others rely on centralized approvals or re-tendering. Sustainability criteria are rarely formalized in procurement decisions, despite growing awareness of environmental impact.
conclusionEuropean procurement systems for EP consumables differ markedly in structure, evaluation practices, and alignment with clinical and innovation priorities. Integrating clinician input, adopting value-based frameworks, and embedding sustainability metrics could enhance procurement outcomes and patient care. Harmonized guidance from EHRA and EU-level stakeholders may support more equitable and innovation-friendly procurement strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.