An updated review of implantable cardioverter/defibrillators, induced anxiety, and quality of life.

During the past 2 years the number of studies examining psychopathology and quality of life after ICD implantation has increased dramatically. Variables assessed have included recipient age, gender, and social support network. How recipients respond to having the device, particularly after experiencing firing, has been evaluated in light of new depression and anxiety disorder diagnoses as well as premorbid personality structure. Now the picture of what is known is, if anything, cloudier than it was 2 years ago, with little definitive and much contradictory data emerging in most of these categories. It still seems clear that in a significant minority of ICD recipients the device negatively affects quality of life, probably more so if it fires. Education about life with the device before receiving it remains paramount. Reports continue to appear of patients developing new-onset diagnosable anxiety disorders such as panic and posttraumatic stress disorder. Until recently the strongest predictors of induced psychopathology were considered to be the frequency and recency of device firing. It now seems that preimplantation psychologic variables such as degree of optimism or pessimism and an anxious personality style may confer an even greater risk than previously thought. Certainly many variables factor into the induction of psychopathology in these patients. Among these factors are age, gender, and perception of control of shocks, as well as the predictability of shocks and psychologic attributions made by the patient regarding the device. Another source of variability is this population's medical heterogeneity. Some patients receive ICDs after near-death experiences; others get them as anticipatory prophylaxis. Some have longstanding and entrenched heart disease; others were apparently healthy before sudden dangerous arrhythmias. Diagnoses as diverse as myocardial infarction in the context of advanced coronary artery disease and dilated cardiomyopathy after acute viral infection may warrant ICD placement. Moreover the course of cardiac disease after ICD placement may vary from relative stability to continuing disease progression and severe functional compromise. Unless these and other pre- and postimplantation differences are taken into account, it is almost impossible to make meaningful comparisons between studies. Ideally, future research would consist either of large-scale, randomized, prospective studies using validated structured-interview tools to supplement a literature dominated by self-report measures, unstructured assessments, and anecdotal reports, or of smaller studies designed to focus on particular diagnostic subsets. As ICDs become the standard of care for potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, the rate of implantations continues to increase. Because negative emotions have been linked to an increased incidence of arrhythmias, and untreated or unrecognized psychiatric illness can interfere with adaptation to an ICD, assessing and managing both pre-existing and induced psychiatric disorders becomes even more critical. Greater research attention should be paid to determining which patients meet criteria for anxiety disorders before and after implantation and what premorbid traits predispose to postimplantation psychopathology. The authors predict that psychiatrists will be involved increasingly in caring for this population, offering insights into treatment options that increase the likelihood of successful ICD acceptance and decrease the psychosocial costs of these devices.