The psychological, social, and quality of life outcomes of people with a cardiac implantable electronic device: an umbrella review

AIMS

To synthesize the psychological, social, and quality of life outcomes of people with a cardiac implantable electronic device.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An umbrella review of systematic reviews that reported the psychological, social, or quality of life outcomes of adults with a cardiac implantable electronic device was conducted. This umbrella review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023437078) and adhered to JBI and PRISMA guidelines. Seven databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, EmCare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the Web of Science) were searched alongside citation and bibliographic searches. Methodological quality was assessed using the JBI Checklist of Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Due to the heterogeneity of the included reviews, the findings were reported narratively. A total of 14 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria; 11 considered quality of life outcomes, and 3 considered psychological outcomes. Little difference in quality of life was found between people with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and controls; however, a high prevalence of psychological disorders was present. Cardiac resynchronization therapy devices demonstrated improvements in quality of life compared with control groups, alongside possible cognitive benefits. Quality of life did not differ between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Pacemakers were associated with improved post-implantation quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Research on the psychosocial and quality of life outcomes of people with a cardiac implantable electronic device is limited and inconsistent. Given the heterogeneity of the current research, conclusions are uncertain. Nevertheless, some recipients may experience adverse psychosocial complications. Further research employing rigorous methodologies is needed, and healthcare practitioners should provide care that acknowledges the potential for adverse psychosocial experiences.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42023437078.

Optimizing Recovery: A Systematic Scoping Review of Upper Extremity Exercise Immediately after Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, defibrillators, and resynchronization devices, significantly enhance patient outcomes, reduce sudden cardiac death, and improve health-related quality of life. CIED implantation is associated to persistent shoulder dysfunction in a considerable number of patients one-year post-implantation. This may result in disability, diminished quality of life, work absenteeism, and negative psychological effects. Restoring upper extremity function after CIED implantation should be a standard of cardiovascular care. Our systematic scoping review aimed to summarize available evidence, addressing vital questions about safety, effectiveness, exercise type, and time of exercise initiation immediately after CIED implantation.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in 5 electronic databases for original research in English, and a manual search on the references of included studies. We used Rayyan web application for study selection, and PRISMA-ScR to conduct and report the review. We assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists.

RESULTS

This review included 6 studies that used upper extremity pendular, range of motion, stretching and strengthening exercises. Initiation time varied from the first postoperative day to the second postoperative week. All studies showed significant association between active upper extremity exercise and reduced dysfunction and disability after CIED implantation. There were no significant differences in complication rates between control and experimental groups.

CONCLUSION

A limited number of low-to-average quality studies suggest active upper extremity exercise immediately after CIED implantation is safe, effective at reducing dysfunction, and improves quality of life. Higher-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

Impact of raising the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices on postoperative safety

Background

The upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical device tends to have a limited range of motion during the perioperative period; however, the underlying reason lacks scientific evidence. This study aimed to investigate the safety of the two methods (stepwise or early) of postoperative early upper extremity rehabilitation.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 650 consecutive patients with a new implantable pacemaker (PM), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or generator exchange between March 2017 and December 2020.The limitation program was conducted from March 2017 to March 2018. The intervention program started as a stepwise protocol in April 2018 and was switched to an early protocol in December 2019.

Results

This study analyzed 591 patients, excluding 59 who met the exclusion criteria. The mean age was 76.0 (69.0-82.0) years; 412 (69.7%) patients had a PM, 79 (13.4%) had an ICD, and 100 (16.9%) utilized CRT. There were 155 patients in the limitation protocol, 251 in the stepwise protocol, and 185 patients in the early protocol groups. Postoperative complications occurred in 53 (9.0%) patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all complications between the three groups (16 patients [10.3%] vs. 26 patients [10.4%] vs. 11 patients [5.9%]). Shoulder exercise-related complications were defined as hematoma (p = .94), lead dislodgement (p = .16), and increased pacing threshold (p = .23). General complications included wound infection (p = .51), pneumothorax (p = .27), tamponade (p = .07), and deep venous thrombosis (p = .26).

Conclusion

Raising of the upper extremity siding cardiac implantable electrical devices above the head did not compromise postoperative safety.

Nanogenerator-Based Sensors for Energy Harvesting From Cardiac Contraction

Biomedical electric devices provide great assistance for health and life quality. However, their maintainable need remains a serious issue for the restricted duration of energy storage. Therefore, scientists are investigating alternative technologies such as nanogenerators that could harvest the mechanical energy of the human heart to act as the main source of energy for the pacemaker. Cardiac contraction is not a source for circulation; it utilizes body energy as an alternative energy source to recharge pacemaker devices. This is a key biomedical innovation to protect patients’ lives from possible risks resulting from repeated surgery. A batteryless pacemaker is possible via an implantable energy collecting tool, exchanging the restriction of the current batteries for a sustainable self-energy resource technique. In this context, the physiology of heart energy in the preservation of blood distribution pulse generation and the effects of cardiac hormones on the heart’s pacemaker shall be outlined. In this review, we summarized different technologies for the implantable energy harvesters and self-powered implantable medical devices with emphasis on nanogenerator-based sensors for energy harvesting from cardiac contraction. It could conclude that recent hybrid bio-nanogenerator systems of both piezoelectric and triboelectric devices based on biocompatible biomaterials and clean energy are promising biomedical devices for harvesting energy from cardiac and body movement. These implantable and wearable nanogenerators become self-powered biomedical tools with high efficacy, durability, thinness, flexibility, and low cost. Although many studies have proven their safety, there is a need for their long-term biosafety and biocompatibility. A further note on the biocompatibility of bio-generator sensors shall be addressed.