Patient acceptance of subcutaneous versus transvenous defibrillator systems: A multi-center experience

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD.

METHODS

Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation.

RESULTS

176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] vs. 56 [50-81], p = .029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] vs. 25 [10-50], p = .019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] vs. 81 [63-94], p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD.

Sex Is Associated With Differences in Individual Trajectories of Change in Social Health After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Background—

Social health is a dimension of quality of life, and refers to people’s involvement in, and satisfaction with social roles, responsibilities, and activities. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is associated with changes in overall quality of life, but little is known about sex differences in individual trajectories of change in social health.

Methods and Results—

We prospectively measured changes in 3 subscales of the SF-36v2 generic health questionnaire (role physical, role emotional, and social functioning), 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System short forms (satisfaction with participation in social roles and satisfaction with participation in discretionary social activities), and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey before and at 1, 2, and 6 months after implantation. Individual growth models of temporal change were estimated. The scores of the 6 indicators improved with time. The unconditional model demonstrated significant (fixed effects: P <0.05; covariance parameters: P <0.10) residual variability in the individual trajectories. In the conditional model, men and women differed significantly in their rates of change in the scores of 3 of the 6 measures. Although men’s mean scores exceeded women’s mean scores on all indicators at baseline (range of relative mean difference: 11.0% to 17.8%), the rate of women’s change resulted in a reversal in relative standing at 6 months after implantation, with the mean scores of women exceeding the men’s by 4.5% to 5.6%.

Conclusions—

Men and women differed in their trajectories of change in social health, both in terms of their starting points (ie, baseline scores) and their rates of change.

Perspectives of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices who received advisory warnings

OBJECTIVE

To learn the perspectives of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received device-related advisories.

BACKGROUND

CIEDs are placed under advisory because of potential malfunctions.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used. Focus groups were conducted of 10 patients who had CIEDs under advisory. Audio recordings of the focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed for content in accordance with qualitative analysis methods, specifically thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Major themes were identified: patients' attitudes toward their devices under advisory, education about advisories, emotional responses to advisories, impact on loved ones, and what affected patients would say to the chief executive officers of CIED manufacturers. Although the patients felt "fortunate and blessed" to have their devices, they reported a range of emotional responses to the advisories (from no concern to "outrage"). Patients preferred to learn about advisories from their physicians, not from news media. Loved ones had as many, if not more, advisory-related concerns than the patients. Patients had recommendations for chief executive officers of CIED manufacturers regarding advisories, including providing timely and comprehensible information and emotional support, taking responsibility, and collaborating with health care providers. Patients wanted to know what prompted the advisory and what will be done to fix the problem.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiences and perspectives of patients with CIEDs under advisory not only encompass their emotional responses to advisories, but also their views on how the advisory notification process can be improved. These findings should be informative to CIED manufacturers and clinicians.

Psychological impact of surveillance in patients with a defibrillator lead under advisory: a prospective evaluation

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads are subject to technical failures and the impact of the resulting public advisories on patient welfare is unclear. The psychological status of patients who received an advisory for their Medtronic Fidelis ICD lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) and followed either by self-surveillance for alarm or home monitoring with CareLink was evaluated prospectively and compared to patients with ICDs not under advisory.

METHODS

One hundred sixty consecutive consenting patients (90 alarms, 24 Carelinks, 46 controls) were recruited within 1.5 years of advisory notification. Advisory patients were seen immediately before being told that the automatic lead surveillance utilized since the advisory had been inadequate in warning of impending fracture, as well as 1 and 6 months after programming was optimized. Depression, anxiety, quality of life (QoL), and ICD-related concerns were assessed.

RESULTS

Symptoms of depression and state anxiety were experienced by 31% and 48% of patients, respectively. QoL was impaired on all subscales. No significant group differences in distress and ICD-related concerns emerged at baseline or at follow-up. At baseline, alarm patients reported greater limitations because of body pain compared to controls (P < 0.05). All patients showed a significant reduction in body pain-related QoL at the final versus first two evaluations (P < 0.001). Advisory patients were significantly less satisfied with surveillance at follow-up than at baseline (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There was limited evidence for worse psychosocial functioning in those at risk for ICD lead fracture, irrespective of surveillance method. However, many control and advisory patients experienced chronic distress for which counseling may prove beneficial.