Decreased Quality of Life Due to Driving Restrictions After Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation

Driving status and health-related quality of life among the oldest old: a population-based examination using data from the AgeCoDe-AgeQualiDe prospective cohort study

Background

It is almost unknown whether the driving status is associated with HRQOL among individuals in highest age.

Aims

Based on a multicenter prospective cohort study, the objective of this study was to examine whether the driving status is associated with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among the oldest old in Germany.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from follow-up wave 9 (n = 544) were derived from the “Study on Needs, health service use, costs and health-related quality of life in a large sample of oldest-old primary care patients (85+)” (AgeQualiDe). Average age was 90.3 years (± 2.7; 86 to 101 years). The current driver status (no; yes) was used in our analysis. The EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire was used to assess HRQOL in this study.

Results

Regression analysis showed that being a current driver was associated with the absence of problems in ‘self-care’ [OR 0.41 (95%-CI 0.17 to 0.98)], and ‘usual activities’ [OR 0.48 (0.26 to 0.90)], whereas it was not significantly associated with problems in ‘pain/discomfort’ [OR  0.82 (0.47 to 1.45)] and ‘anxiety/depression’ [OR  0.71 (0.36 to 1.39)]. Being a current driver was marginally significantly associated with the absence of problems in ‘mobility’ [OR 0.60 (0.34 to 1.06)]. While being a current driver was not associated with the EQ-VAS in the main model, it was positively associated with the driving status (β = 5.00, p < .05) when functional impairment was removed from the main model.

Discussion

Our findings provide first evidence for an association between driving status and HRQOL among the oldest old.

Conclusions

Future longitudinal studies are required to evaluate a possible causal relationship between driving status and HRQOL in very old individuals.

Driving following defibrillator implantation: a nationwide register-linked survey study

AIMS

Patients are restricted from driving following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation or shock. We sought to investigate how many patients are aware of, and adhere to, the driving restrictions, and what proportion experience an ICD shock or other cardiac symptoms while driving.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a nationwide survey of all living Danish residents 18 years or older who received a first-time ICD between 2013 and 2016 (n = 3913) and linked their responses with nationwide registers. Of 2741 respondents (47% primary prevention, 83% male, median age 67 years), 2513 (92%) held a valid driver's license at ICD implantation, 175 (7%) of whom had a license for professional driving. Many drivers were unaware of driving restrictions: primary prevention 58%; secondary prevention 36%; post-appropriate shock 28%; professional drivers 55%. Almost all (94%) resumed non-professional driving after ICD implantation, more than one-third during the restricted period; 35% resumed professional driving. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, 5 (0.2%) reported receiving an ICD shock while driving, one of which resulted in a traffic accident. The estimated risk of harm was 0.0002% per person-year.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide study, many ICD patients were unaware of driving restrictions, and more than one third resumed driving during a driving restriction period. However, the rate of reported ICD shocks while driving was very low.

Driving Restrictions and Early Arrhythmias in Patients Receiving a Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DREAM-ICD) Study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend 4 weeks of private driving restriction after implantation of a primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). These driving restrictions result in significant inconvenience and social implications. Advances in medical treatment and ICD programming have lowered the overall rate of device therapies. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of ICD therapies at 30, 60, and 180 days after implantation.

METHODS

Driving Restrictions and Early Arrhythmias in Patients Receiving a Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DREAM-ICD) was a retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 Canadian university centres enrolling patients with new implantation of a primary-prevention ICD. Device programming was standardised according to current guidelines. A total of 803 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

The cumulative rates of appropriate ICD therapies at 30, 60, and 180 days were 0.12%, 0.50%, and 0.75%, respectively. There was no syncope during the first 6 months. The median duration to the first appropriate ICD therapy was 208 (range 23-1109) days after implantation. The rate of inappropriate ICD therapies at 30 days was only 0.2%. Overall, < 13.6% of all appropriate ICD therapies occurred within the first 6 months after implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of appropriate ICD therapies within the first 30 days after device insertion is extremely low in contemporary primary prevention cohorts with guideline-concordant device programming. There was no increased risk for ventricular arrhythmia early after ICD insertion. The results of DREAM-ICD suggest the need for a revision of the existing driving restrictions for primary-prevention ICD recipients.