AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, which includes the risk of shocks, is considered the primary culprit of reductions in patient reported outcomes (PROs; e.g. health status and distress), thereby negating the role of underlying disease severity. We examined the relative influence of living with an ICD vs. congestive heart failure (CHF) on PROs and compared (i) ICD patients without CHF (ICD only), (ii) CHF patients without an ICD (CHF-only), and (iii) CHF patients with an ICD (ICD + CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Separate cohorts of ICD and CHF patients (N = 435; 75% men) completed PROs at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Groups differed on physical health status only at baseline (F((2,415)) = 7.15, P = 0.001) and on anxiety at 12 months (F((2,415)) = 4.04, P = 0.01); ICD + CHF patients had the most impaired physical health status but the lowest anxiety level followed by the ICD only and CHF only patients. Congestive heart failure only patients had the most impaired mental health status and reported the highest level of anxiety as compared to the ICD only (P < 0.001) and ICD + CHF groups (P = 0.009), while the two latter groups did not differ. The effect sizes ranged from very small (0.03) to moderate-large (0.69). Groups did not differ in depression scores. CONCLUSION: Congestive heart failure patients reported worse PROs as compared to ICD patients, although the magnitude of the differences was relatively small. This suggests that the well being of patients is not necessarily negatively influenced by the implantation of an ICD, and that underlying heart disease may have at least an equal if not greater influence on PROs.
AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, which includes the risk of shocks, is considered the primary culprit of reductions in patient reported outcomes (PROs; e.g. health status and distress), thereby negating the role of underlying disease severity. We examined the relative influence of living with an ICD vs. congestive heart failure (CHF) on PROs and compared (i) ICDpatients without CHF (ICD only), (ii) CHFpatients without an ICD (CHF-only), and (iii) CHFpatients with an ICD (ICD + CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Separate cohorts of ICD and CHFpatients (N = 435; 75% men) completed PROs at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Groups differed on physical health status only at baseline (F((2,415)) = 7.15, P = 0.001) and on anxiety at 12 months (F((2,415)) = 4.04, P = 0.01); ICD + CHFpatients had the most impaired physical health status but the lowest anxiety level followed by the ICD only and CHF only patients. Congestive heart failure only patients had the most impaired mental health status and reported the highest level of anxiety as compared to the ICD only (P < 0.001) and ICD + CHF groups (P = 0.009), while the two latter groups did not differ. The effect sizes ranged from very small (0.03) to moderate-large (0.69). Groups did not differ in depression scores. CONCLUSION:Congestive heart failurepatients reported worse PROs as compared to ICDpatients, although the magnitude of the differences was relatively small. This suggests that the well being of patients is not necessarily negatively influenced by the implantation of an ICD, and that underlying heart disease may have at least an equal if not greater influence on PROs.
Authors: Bulent Gorenek; Antonio Pelliccia; Emelia J Benjamin; Giuseppe Boriani; Harry J Crijns; Richard I Fogel; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Martin Halle; Gulmira Kudaiberdieva; Deirdre A Lane; Torben Bjerregaard Larsen; Gregory Y H Lip; Maja-Lisa Løchen; Francisco Marin; Josef Niebauer; Prashanthan Sanders; Lale Tokgozoglu; Marc A Vos; David R Van Wagoner; Laurent Fauchier; Irina Savelieva; Andreas Goette; Stefan Agewall; Chern-En Chiang; Márcio Figueiredo; Martin Stiles; Timm Dickfeld; Kristen Patton; Massimo Piepoli; Ugo Corra; Pedro Manuel Marques-Vidal; Pompilio Faggiano; Jean-Paul Schmid; Ana Abreu Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Bulent Gorenek; Antonio Pelliccia; Emelia J Benjamin; Giuseppe Boriani; Harry J Crijns; Richard I Fogel; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Martin Halle; Gulmira Kudaiberdieva; Deirdre A Lane; Torben Bjerregaard Larsen; Gregory Y H Lip; Maja-Lisa Løchen; Francisco Marín; Josef Niebauer; Prashanthan Sanders; Lale Tokgozoglu; Marc A Vos; David R Van Wagoner; Laurent Fauchier; Irina Savelieva; Andreas Goette; Stefan Agewall; Chern-En Chiang; Márcio Figueiredo; Martin Stiles; Timm Dickfeld; Kristen Patton; Massimo Piepoli; Ugo Corra; Pedro Manuel Marques-Vidal; Pompilio Faggiano; Jean-Paul Schmid; Ana Abreu Journal: Europace Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Jason J George; Melanie Panko; Scott Bea; Karen A Broer; Julie St John; Kecia-Ann Blissett; Elizabeth Ching; Samuel F Sears; Susanne S Pedersen; Leopoldo Pozuelo; Mina K Chung Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: M Habibović; L Mudde; S S Pedersen; D Schoormans; J Widdershoven; J Denollet Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Mirela Habibović; Pim Cuijpers; Marco Alings; Pepijn van der Voort; Dominic Theuns; Leon Bouwels; Jean-Paul Herrman; Suzanne Valk; Susanne Pedersen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Susanne S Pedersen; Søren J Skovbakke; Uffe K Wiil; Thomas Schmidt; Rene dePont Christensen; Carl J Brandt; Jan Sørensen; Michael Vinther; Charlotte E Larroudé; Thomas M Melchior; Sam Riahi; Kim G E Smolderen; John A Spertus; Jens B Johansen; Jens C Nielsen Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 2.298