Literature DB >> 31440897

Phantom shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: impact of education level, anxiety, and depression.

Swaroop Varghese1, J Christoph Geller2, Marc-Alexander Ohlow3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are designed to deliver shocks in the event of ventricular arrhythmias. Some ICD recipients experience the sensation of ICD discharge in the absence of an actual discharge (phantom shock, PS).
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and consequences of PS in ICD recipients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive ICD recipients were examined during a routine outpatient follow-up (FU) visit. Subjects completed a written survey; their level of depression and anxiety was assessed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire.
RESULTS: Of 434 patients invited to the study, 423 (97.5%) ICD recipients agreed to and completed the survey; 349 (83%) had a primary prevention indication and 339 (80%) ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 27 patients (6.4%) reported a PS during a mean FU of 64 ± 44 months (5.4% in the primary prevention group and 10.8% in the secondary prevention group; p = 0.11). PS were related to higher education (≥bachelor's degree 41% versus 20%; p = 0.03), and more frequent in patients receiving adequate shocks during FU (34% versus 0.5%; p < 0.001). HADS score levels were higher following PS (15 ± 6 versus 8.8 ± 7.4; p < 0.001). The majority of patients reporting PS felt that the information provided to them prior to ICD placement was insufficient (22.2% versus 5.0%), that they needed psychological support after ICD implantation (26% versus 3%), and considered ICD deactivation in near end-of-life situations (59% versus 29%; p < 0.001 for all).
CONCLUSIONS: PS occur in 6.4% of all ICD recipients and are related to higher education and to patients that experienced adequate shocks during FU.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HADS score; ICD; Phantom shock; Psychology; Quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31440897     DOI: 10.1007/s00399-019-00645-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol        ISSN: 0938-7412


  29 in total

1.  Things that go bang in the night.

Authors:  P R Kowey; R A Marinchak; S J Rials
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-12-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Avoidance behaviors in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  Jim Lemon; Sarah Edelman; Ann Kirkness
Journal:  Heart Lung       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.210

3.  Examining the psychosocial impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a literature review.

Authors:  S F Sears; J F Todaro; T S Lewis; W Sotile; J B Conti
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 2.882

4.  Identification of patients most likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study.

Authors:  R Sheldon; S Connolly; A Krahn; R Roberts; M Gent; M Gardner
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-04-11       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 5.  The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review.

Authors:  Ingvar Bjelland; Alv A Dahl; Tone Tangen Haug; Dag Neckelmann
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 6.  Living with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a review of the current literature related to psychosocial factors.

Authors:  S A Thomas; E Friedmann; F J Kelley
Journal:  AACN Clin Issues       Date:  2001-02

7.  Determinants of the quality of life (QoL) in patients with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD).

Authors:  F Godemann; C Butter; F Lampe; M Linden; S Werner; S Behrens
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  The effects of age on quality of life in implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients.

Authors:  Glenys A Hamilton; Diane L Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.036

9.  Socio-economic status, standard of living, and neurotic disorder.

Authors:  G Lewis; P Bebbington; T Brugha; M Farrell; B Gill; R Jenkins; H Meltzer
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2003 Feb-May

10.  Education and income: which is more important for mental health?

Authors:  R Araya; G Lewis; G Rojas; R Fritsch
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.