Position paper on sustainability in cardiac pacing and electrophysiology from the Working Group of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology.

Sustainability in healthcare, particularly within the domain of cardiac electrophysiology, assumes paramount importance for the near future. The escalating environmental constraints encountered necessitate a proactive approach. This position paper aims to raise awareness among physicians, spark critical inquiry and identify potential solutions to enhance the sustainability of our practice. Reprocessing of single-use medical devices has emerged as a potential solution to mitigate the environmental impact of electrophysiology procedures, while also offering economic advantages. However, reprocessing remains unauthorized in certain countries. In regions where it is possible, stringent regulatory standards must be adhered to, to ensure patient safety. It is essential that healthcare professionals, policymakers and manufacturers collaborate to drive innovation, explore sustainable practices and ensure that patient care remains uncompromised in the face of environmental challenges. Ambitious national/international programmes of disease prevention should be the cornerstone of the strategy. It is equally vital to implement immediate actions, as delineated in this position paper, to bring about tangible change quickly.

Reducing pain by using venous blood gas instead of arterial blood gas (VEINART): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Venous sampling for blood gas analysis has been suggested as an alternative to arterial sampling in order to reduce pain. The main objective was to compare pain induced by venous and arterial sampling and to assess whether the type of sampling would affect clinical management or not. METHODS: We performed an open-label randomised multicentre prospective study in four French EDs during a 4-week period. Non-hypoxaemic adults, whose medical management required blood gas analysis, were randomly allocated using a computer-generated randomisation list stratified by centres with an allocation ratio of 1:1 using random blocks to one of the two arms: venous or arterial sampling. The primary outcome was the maximal pain during sampling, using the visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes pertained to ease of sampling as rated by the nurse drawing the blood, and physician satisfaction regarding usefulness of biochemical data. RESULTS: 113 patients were included: 55 in the arterial and 58 in the venous sampling group. The mean maximal pain was 40.5 mm±24.9 mm and 22.6 mm±20.2 mm in the arterial group and the venous group, respectively, accounting for a mean difference of 17.9 mm (95% CI 9.6 to 26.3) (p<0.0001). Ease of blood sampling was greater in the venous group as compared with the arterial group (p=0.02). The usefulness of the results, evaluated by the prescriber, did not significantly differ (p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Venous blood gas is less painful for patients than ABG in non-hypoxaemic patients. Venous blood gas should replace ABG in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03784664.