Perceptions of healthcare professionals’ support, shock anxiety and device acceptance among implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients

Patient-reported quality of life and acceptance of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results from pivotal study

INTRODUCTION

The pivotal study of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) recently demonstrated primary efficacy and safety endpoints comparable to previous ICD systems. Patient experience with this novel device has not been reported. The current study examined the standardized patient-reported outcome (PRO) metrics of quality of life (QOL) and patient acceptance of the device.

METHODS

The EV ICD Pivotal Study was a prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized, global, premarket approval trial. Patients completed the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) QOL surveys at baseline and at 6 months following implant. Additionally, patients completed the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) QOL survey at 6 months.

RESULTS

From baseline to 6 months, patients within the EV ICD Pivotal Study (n = 247) reported statistically significant SF-12 improvements in physical QOL (45.4 ± 9.4 vs. 46.8 ± 9.1 respectively, p = .020) and no changes in mental QOL (49.3 ± 10.4 vs. 50.5 ± 9.7, p = .061). No differences were noted by sex, atrial fibrillation, or the experience of ICD shock. EV ICD patients reported better total FPAS patient acceptance of their ICD than TV-ICD or S-ICD patients using historical norms comparisons (80.4 ± 15.7 vs. 70.2 ± 17.8, p < .0001 for S-ICD and 73.0 ± 17.4, p = .004 for TV-ICD).

CONCLUSION

The initial PROs for EV ICD patients indicated that patients had improvements in physical QOL from baseline to 6-month follow-up and markedly better overall acceptance of their ICD compared to a previous study with S-ICD and TV-ICD data. These initial results suggest that the EV ICD is evaluated positively by patients.

Testing a nurse-led, pre-implantation educational intervention for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates: a randomized feasibility trial

AIMS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) deliver therapy for life-threatening arrhythmias. Evidence suggests that ICD candidates have misconceptions regarding ICD therapy and unmet information needs. We undertook a pilot feasibility trial comparing a nurse-led educational intervention plus standard care, vs. standard pre-ICD implantation care. Secondary aims included examination of anxiety, quality of life, and shock anxiety.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates were consented and randomized to standard pre-ICD implantation care vs. standard care plus a nurse-led educational intervention. The primary feasibility outcomes included: recruitment rate, consent rate, randomization rate, proportion of participants able to complete all questionnaires, time to deliver intervention, and intervention topics completion. At baseline, demographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety scores were collected. Four weeks post-ICD implantation, participants completed the PROMIS, Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS), and Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS). Twenty patients consented (10 per group). Feasibility targets were achieved for all but two outcomes: consent rate was 87% vs. 95% target, and completion of data collection measures was 85% vs. 90% target. Consent rate was lower than expected as one patient declined, and two could not be approached. Completion rate was lower than expected as two patients were lost to follow-up, and one did not receive an ICD during the study period, leading to incomplete post-implantation survey collections.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a trial comparing a nurse-led pre-implantation educational intervention to standard care in an outpatient setting. Further study to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention on patient-reported outcomes is warranted.

How Do Patients Understand Safety for Cardiac Implantable Devices? Importance of Postintervention Education

Aim

This study was designed to assess the effect of patient education on the knowledge of safety and awareness about living with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) within the context of phase I cardiac rehabilitation.

Methods

The study was conducted with 28 newly implanted CIED patients who were included in “education group (EG)”. Patients were questioned with a survey about living with CIEDs and electromagnetic interference (EMI) before and 1 month after an extensive constructed interview. Ninety-three patients who had been living with CIEDs were included in the “without education group (woEG)”.

Results

Patients in EG had improved awareness on topics related to physical and daily life activities including work, driving, sports and sexual activities, EMI of household items, harmful equipment, and some of the medical devices in the hospital setting (p<0.05). Patients in EG gave significantly different percent of correct answers for doing exercise or sports, using the arm on the side of CIEDs, EMI of some of the household appliances, medical devices, and all of the harmful equipment compared to woEG (p<0.05).

Conclusion

It was demonstrated that a constructed education interview on safety of CIEDs and living with these devices within the context of phase I cardiac rehabilitation is important for improving the awareness of patients significantly. Thus, patients might achieve a faster adaptation to daily life and decrease disinformation and misperceptions and thus promote the quality of life after the device implantation.

Perceptions and experiences of patients living with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac deaths have become a growing major public health concern that affects the world. Despite the various etiologies, life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias attribute the main cause of sudden cardiac deaths. Therefore in certain groups of high-risk patients, the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) has been recommended as either a secondary or primary prophylactic method of prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the perceptions of ICD recipients and provide an overview of their experiences with regards to the quality of life, coping strategies, and learning needs.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Primary research articles published from January 2005 to January 2016 that met the inclusion criteria were selected and assessed for methodological quality.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine articles consisting of 16 qualitative studies, 22 quantitative studies, and 1 mixed methods study were included for the meta-synthesis. Findings extracted from these studies were grouped into eight subthemes with 'living the ICD experience: a constant process of redefining oneself' emerging as an over-arching theme.

CONCLUSION

This review provides insight into the perspectives and experiences of ICD recipients. Current evidence highlights the need for healthcare professionals to improve future care standards and develop a patient-centric holistic program that meets the specific needs of ICD recipients. Moreover, future studies are required to address the research gaps identified and also explore the perceptions of patients living with ICD in the Asian context.

Gender Disparities in Symptoms of Anxiety, Depression, and Quality of Life in Defibrillator Recipients

BACKGROUND

Most patients cope well with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), but psychological distress and ICD-related concerns have been reported in about 20% of ICD recipients. Many previous studies have not distinguished between genders.

METHODS

In this nationwide study we compared quality of life, anxiety, and depression symptoms between the genders in ICD recipients, and determined predictors of each of these variables in men and women. All adult Swedish ICD recipients were invited by mail to participate and 2,771 patients (66 ± 12 years) completed standardized measures of quality of life, symptoms of anxiety, and depression. Time since implantation ranged from 1 year to 23 years with a mean of 4.7 ± 3.9.

RESULTS

Women reported worse quality of life (mean index 0.790 vs 0.825) and higher prevalence of anxiety (20.5% vs 14.7%) than did men (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), while there were no differences in symptoms of depression (8.8% vs 8.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most ICD recipients report a good quality of life, without emotional distress, but among the minority with distress, women fare worse than men.