Recommendations for driving of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Study Group on 'ICD and Driving' of the Working Groups on Cardiac Pacing and Arrhythmias of the European Society of Cardiology

Partners of ICD Patients—An Exploratory Study of Their Experiences

BACKGROUND

The experiences of partners who care for and support the needs of a loved one with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) remain largely unknown within Europe.

AIMS

This study explored the nature of partner's experiences from the pre-ICD implantation phase up until a maximum of 20 months at home.

METHODS

Eight partners cohabiting with a recipient of an ICD were interviewed using a semistructured schedule. All interviews were transcribed and content analysed for emerging categories and themes.

FINDINGS

Four themes representing 11 categories conceptualised the partners' experiences, these included: Acknowledging the patient's need for the device, reactions to the device, safeguarding the patient, and returning to normality.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study suggests that partners of ICD recipients progress through various difficult and adaptive stages when learning how best to support the patient. A point is reached when most are able to assume control and normalise their lives. This transformation is slow; however, to improve this process and empower partners, nurses should provide relevant information and include them in decisions affecting the patient. Further research into the unique needs of partners, which includes international perspectives, would be significant in developing practice and theory in this area.

Design and methods for a pilot study of a phone-delivered, mindfulness-based intervention in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Background. Meditation practices are associated with a reduction in adrenergic activity that may benefit patients with severe cardiac arrhythmias. This paper describes the design and methods of a pilot study testing the feasibility of a phone-delivered mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) for treatment of anxiety in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Design and Methods. Consecutive, clinically stable outpatients (n = 52) will be screened for study eligibility within a month of an ICD-related procedure or ICD shock and will be randomly assigned to MBI or to usual care. MBI patients will receive eight weekly individual phone sessions based on two mindfulness practices (awareness of breath and body scan) plus home practice with a CD for 20 minutes daily. Patients assigned to usual care will be offered the standard care planned by the hospital. Assessments will occur at baseline and at the completion of the intervention (between 9 and 12 weeks after randomization). The primary study outcome is feasibility; secondary outcomes include anxiety, mindfulness, and number of administered shocks during the intervention period. Conclusions. If proven feasible and effective, phone-delivered mindfulness-based interventions could improve psychological distress in ICD outpatients with serious cardiovascular conditions.

Consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association: updated recommendations for driving by patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have an ongoing risk of sudden incapacitation that might cause harm to others while driving a car. Driving restrictions vary across different countries in Europe. The most recent recommendations for driving of ICD patients in Europe were published in 1997 and focused mainly on patients implanted for secondary prevention. In recent years there has been a vast increase in the number of patients with an ICD and in the percentage of patients implanted for primary prevention. The EHRA task force on ICD and driving was formed to reassess the risk of driving for ICD patients based on the literature available. The recommendations are summarized in the following table and are further explained in the document. [table: see text] Driving restrictions are perceived as difficult for patients and their families, and have an immediate consequence for their lifestyle. To increase the adherence to the driving restrictions, adequate discharge of education and follow-up of patients and family are pivotal. The task force members hope this document may serve as an instrument for European and national regulatory authorities to formulate uniform driving regulations.

Is it safe to allow patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators to drive? Learnings from a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant indications have widened in recent years after the publication of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial 2 and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial. On the contrary, guidelines on resumption of driving after ICD implant were published almost 10 years ago when the ICD implant rate was much lower and candidates were generally older.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of our study was to evaluate whether patients implanted with ICDs have higher risk than the general driving population. The specific aim of the study was to verify the rate of car accidents in patients implanted with an ICD, both for primary and secondary indication, and compare this with the rate of accidents in the general population. The primary end point of the study was the annual car accident rate; the secondary end point was to determine if there were subgroups of patients with a higher risk of car accidents.

METHODS

All patients (612) followed up in our outpatient clinic were sent a questionnaire in which they were asked five questions regarding their driving habits before and after ICD implant and, specifically, whether they had been involved in a car accident after the implant.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-six patients (47%) responded to the questionnaire. Seventy-one patients had never driven; two patients were forbidden to drive for professional reasons (one bus and one truck driver). Two hundred thirteen (74.5% of all responding) patients (201 men, mean age 62 +/- 11 years) continued to drive after ICD implant. During the follow-up (1430 +/- 920 days) 11 patients had been involved in car accidents and, importantly 10 out of 11 were innocent bystanders. Thus, in 996 patient-years, 11 events happened, yielding an annual event rate of 1.1% per patient-years (and only 0.1% in which the driver could had been responsible).

CONCLUSION

Car accidents are infrequent in patients implanted with an ICD, and - in any case - not more frequent than in the general population. The old guidelines need to be updated and specific restrictions on car driving in ICD patients need to be revised to reflect the current data.

Syncope following cardioverter defibrillator implantation in patients with spontaneous syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia

AIMS

We sought to determine the incidence, mechanisms, and time to syncope recurrence in patients with spontaneous syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SyMVT) treated with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Incidence and causes of syncope following ICD implantation in consecutive patients (n=26) with spontaneous SyMVT were compared with those found in consecutive patients (n=50) with spontaneous non-syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (NSyMVT). Patients with SyMVT had a higher incidence of syncope (46% patients) than those with NSyMVT (2% patients) at 31+/-21 and 34+/-23 months follow-up, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.42; P=0.0001). Among the former, four patients (15%) had non-arrhythmic syncope and eight patients had arrhythmic syncope (31%), which was associated with either ICD proarrhythmia (seven episodes of VT acceleration or VF degeneration by ATP or low/high-energy shocks in three patients) or spontaneous VT and VF (five episodes in five patients). Median time to the first arrhythmic syncope was 376 days. Arrhythmic syncope presented after a first non-syncopal VT recurrence in six patients (75%).

CONCLUSION

Syncope following ICD implantation is common in patients with SyMVT in contrast to patients with NSyMVT. Late syncope presentation supports reassessment of driving restrictions in this setting.

Quality of Life Issues in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

In the United States over 350,000 individuals die annually from sudden cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Numerous large-scale clinical trials have consistently demonstrated that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality among appropriately selected patients who have survived an episode of potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia (secondary prevention) or are at risk for ventricular arrhythmia (primary prevention). Despite the demonstrated success of the ICD, many patients often experience unique physical, emotional, and psychosocial needs that can directly impact their overall quality of life (QOL). The most common psychological disturbances following ICD implantation include stress, anxiety, depression, or fear, typical of any chronic illness. Additionally, ICDs impose unique emotional pressures relating to altered body image, painful shocks, and the possibility of hardware failure. The random nature of shocks commonly induces feelings of isolation and powerlessness and the experience of shocks is directly linked to poor QOL outcomes. Lifestyle changes, such as restrictions on driving, eligibility for employment, marital and social relationships, sexual intimacy, or participation in recreational activities can significantly affect the ICD patient's psychological and emotional well-being. The purpose of this article is to review the QOL data from several large-scale clinical trials of ICD patients as well as to examine specific QOL issues such as driving restrictions, occupational, and recreational concerns.

Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

INTRODUCTION

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is commonly used to treat patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Arrhythmia recurrence rates in these patients are high, but which patients will receive a therapy and the forms of arrhythmia recurrence (VT or VF) are poorly understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The therapy delivered by the ICD was examined in 449 patients randomized to ICD therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. Events triggering ICD shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) were reviewed for arrhythmia diagnosis, clinical symptoms, activity at the onset of the arrhythmia, and appropriateness and results of therapy. Both shock and ATP therapies were frequent by 2 years, with 68% of patients receiving some therapy or having an arrhythmic death. An appropriate shock was delivered in 53% of patients, and ATP was delivered in 68% of patients who had ATP activated. The first arrhythmia treated in follow-up was diagnosed as VT (63%), VF (13%), supraventricular tachycardia (18%), unknown arrhythmia (3%), or due to ICD malfunction or inappropriate sensing (3%). Acceleration of an arrhythmia by the ICD occurred in 8% of patients who received any therapy. No physical activity consistently preceded arrhythmias, nor did any single clinical factor predict the symptoms of the arrhythmia.

CONCLUSION

Delivery of ICD therapy in AVID patients was common, primarily due to VT. Inappropriate ICD therapy occurred frequently. Use of ICD therapy as a surrogate endpoint for death in clinical trials should be avoided.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator is the optimal treatment for both primary and secondary prevention in patients with previous aborted sudden death and with life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. This article will review the indications and the evidence supporting implantable cardioverter defibrillator use.

Resumption of driving after life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia

BACKGROUND

Although the privilege of driving must be respected, it may be necessary to restrict driving when it poses a threat to others. The risks associated with allowing patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias to drive have not been quantified.

METHODS

The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial compared antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with the implantation of defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. In the current study, we sent patients who participated in the AVID trial a questionnaire, to be completed anonymously, requesting information about driving habits and experiences.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was returned by 758 of 909 patients (83 percent). Of these, 627 patients drove during the year before their index episode of ventricular tachyarrhythmia. A total of 57 percent of these patients resumed driving within 3 months after randomization in the AVID trial, 78 percent within 6 months, and 88 percent within 12 months. While driving, 2 percent had a syncopal episode, 11 percent had dizziness or palpitations that necessitated stopping the vehicle, 22 percent had dizziness or palpitations that did not necessitate stopping the vehicle, and 8 percent of the 295 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator received a shock. Fifty patients reported having at least 1 accident, for a total of 55 accidents during 1619 patient-years of follow-up after the resumption of driving (3.4 percent per patient-year). Only 11 percent of these accidents were preceded by symptoms of possible arrhythmia (0.4 percent per patient-year).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias resume driving early. Although it is common for them to have symptoms of possible arrhythmia while driving, accidents are uncommon and occur with a frequency that is lower than the annual accident rate of 7.1 percent in the general driving population of the United States.

Baseline factors predicting early resumption of driving after life-threatening arrhythmias in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

BACKGROUND

In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial, patients with ventricular fibrillation or hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia were randomly assigned to receive either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or antiarrhythmic drug therapy. As part of the trial, patients were asked to participate in a prospective driving survey. The purpose of the survey was to determine what baseline factors and patient characteristics specifically predicted resumption of driving earlier than advised by current guidelines.

METHODS

Patients were surveyed anonymously as to their driving habits in the initial period after random assignment and every 6 months thereafter. AVID study coordinators were independently asked to assess their patients' driving status as well. The relation between baseline factors and time to resumption of driving was explored by means of Kaplan-Meier estimates for univariate analyses and the stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression model for multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

There were 802 patients who were eligible for assessment of driving status. The majority of patients (58%) resumed driving an automobile within 6 months of their index arrhythmia regardless of whether they received drug therapy or an ICD. By multivariate analysis, patients who were younger than 65 years of age, male, and college educated were more likely to drive early, as were patients whose index arrhythmia was ventricular tachycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger, college-educated men and those whose index arrhythmia is ventricular tachycardia are most likely to resume driving <6 months after the initiation of therapy for a potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Patients with an ICD did not appear to resume driving later than those who were discharged on antiarrhythmic drugs alone.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Ventricular arrhythmias remain a major cause of cardiovascular mortality. Therapy for serious ventricular arrhythmias has evolved over the past decade, from treatment primarily with antiarrhythmic drugs to implanted devices. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the best therapy for patients who have experienced an episode of ventricular fibrillation not accompanied by an acute myocardial infarction or other transient or reversible cause. It is also superior therapy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) causing syncope or hemodynamic compromise. Controlled clinical trials have confirmed the utility of these devices. As primary prevention, the ICD is superior to conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients who have survived a myocardial infarction and who have spontaneous, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, a low ejection fraction, inducible VT at electrophysiologic study, and whose VT is not suppressed by procainamide. The effect of the ICD on survival of other patient populations remains to be proven. The device is costly, but its price is generally accepted to be reasonable. The ICD has been a major advance in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable defibrillators have become the dominant therapeutic modality for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Current defibrillators are small (<60 mL) and implanted with techniques similar to standard pacemakers. They provide high-energy shocks for ventricular fibrillation and rapid ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, as well as antibradycardia pacing. Newer devices incorporating an atrial lead allow dual-chamber pacing and better discrimination between ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Randomized controlled trials have shown superior survival with implantable defibrillators than with antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Complications associated with implantable defibrillator therapy include infection, lead failure, and spurious shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Most patients adapt well to living with an implantable defibrillator, although driving often has to be restricted. Limited evidence suggests that implantable defibrillator therapy is cost-effective when compared with other widely accepted treatments. The use of implantable defibrillators is likely to continue to expand in the future. Ongoing clinical trials will define further prophylactic indications of the implantable defibrillator and clarify its cost-effectiveness ratio in different clinical settings.

Should patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators be allowed to drive? Observations in 291 patients from a single center over an 11-year period

Motor-vehicle driving restrictions for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) vary widely throughout the world because safety concerns have never been adequately resolved in this patient population. To address this issue, we examined the driving behavior of 291 ICD patients to correlate the frequency of device therapy during driving, the occurrence of syncopal symptoms, and the incidence of traffic accidents. Fifty of the 291 patients had never driven. Of the remaining 241 patients, 171 (59%) continued driving postimplant and 70 (24%) elected to stop prior to (n = 30) or at the time of ICD implantation (n = 40). Patients were followed for a mean of 38 +/- 26 months (range < 1-124). During this period, no patients died while driving. Of 11 accidents involving 11 driving patients (6%), only 1 was caused by the driver, and none was related to syncopal symptoms or ICD therapy. Although 2 accidents (8%) occurred within 12 months postimplant, the majority (50%) took place after more than 36 months. ICD therapy was delivered in 8 patients (5%) while driving: 13% (1 episode) of the discharges occurred within the first year postimplant, 13% (1 episode) occurred between 1-2 years, and 74% (6 episodes) occurred > 2 years. None of these patients experienced syncope before or during these episodes. A multivariate analysis was unable to identify any variables that might predict increased risk of ICD therapy (with or without sudden death) while driving and consequent motor vehicle accidents. Our data suggest that such events occur only rarely.

Syncope in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: incidence, prediction and implications for driving restrictions

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was undertaken to provide information on occurrence, risk prediction and prevention of syncope in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

BACKGROUND

ICDs effectively terminate ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (VT/VF). Incapacitating symptoms, such as syncope, may still occur.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 421 patients (clinical history, outpatient chart reviews and episode data) with mean (+/-SD) follow-up of 26 +/- 18 months.

RESULTS

Of 421 patients, 229 (54.4%) had recurrent VT/VF, and 62 (14.7%) had syncope. The actuarial survival rate free of VT/VF was 58%, 45% and 37% and that for survival free of syncope was 90%, 85% and 81% at 12, 24 and 36 months after implantation, respectively. Once VT/VF had occurred, 76%, 68% and 62% of patients remained free of syncope during the following 12, 24 and 36 months, and 68%, 64% and 56% remained free of second syncope 12, 24 and 36 months after first syncope, respectively. In cases of syncope, the mean cycle length (CL) of VT was 251 +/- 56 ms. A low baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), induction of fast VT (CL <300 ms) during programmed ventricular stimulation and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) were associated with an increased risk of syncope. If the LVEF was >40%, fast VT had not been induced, and patients had no chronic AF; 96%, 92% and 92% of patients remained free of syncope after 12, 24 and 36 months, respectively. Once patients had a VT recurrence, syncope during the first VT and a high VT rate were the strongest risk predictors of future syncope.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of patients with an ICD with a low and high risk of syncope seems to be feasible and might help as a guide to driving restrictions in such patients.