Impairment of Quality of Life in Patients with Implanted Subcutaneous Cardioverter Defibrillator (S-ICD) Compared to Implanted Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy.
S-ICD
quality of life
subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator
transvenous cardioverter defibrillator
Journal
Patient preference and adherence
ISSN: 1177-889X
Titre abrégé: Patient Prefer Adherence
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101475748
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
15
07
2022
accepted:
05
10
2022
entrez:
17
11
2022
pubmed:
18
11
2022
medline:
18
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been shown to be a viable alternative to transvenous ICDs (TV-ICD) in all patients at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) but without pacing indication. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of therapy with current S-ICD devices on quality of life (QoL) in comparison to patients with TV-ICD devices. In our single-centre study, 52 consecutive patients with S-ICD and 52 matched patients with TV-ICD were analysed. QoL has been assessed by a standardized questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L, modified). Additionally, clinical baseline and follow-up data were evaluated. Two-thirds of the total study population reported restrictions in daily routine compared to their life before ICD implantation. A total of 27.7% of S-ICD patients stated to expect an improvement of QoL by deactivation or explantation of their defibrillator compared to only 6.4% of patients with TV-ICD ( Main limitation of the study is that quality of life was assessed for one single time point only and time since implantation differed significantly between S-ICD and TV-ICD. Furthermore our collective is younger, and, due to the high proportion of patients without cardiomyopathy, the mean EF is better than usual ICD collective. The absence of heart failure in about the half of our patients might have relevant impact on our QoL analysis. A relevant proportion of S-ICD patients expects an improvement of QoL by explantation of the device. Of note, this impression was not driven by the fear of receiving shocks but mainly by discomfort and pain caused by the pulse generator.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been shown to be a viable alternative to transvenous ICDs (TV-ICD) in all patients at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) but without pacing indication.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
The aim of this study was to examine the impact of therapy with current S-ICD devices on quality of life (QoL) in comparison to patients with TV-ICD devices.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In our single-centre study, 52 consecutive patients with S-ICD and 52 matched patients with TV-ICD were analysed. QoL has been assessed by a standardized questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L, modified). Additionally, clinical baseline and follow-up data were evaluated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Two-thirds of the total study population reported restrictions in daily routine compared to their life before ICD implantation. A total of 27.7% of S-ICD patients stated to expect an improvement of QoL by deactivation or explantation of their defibrillator compared to only 6.4% of patients with TV-ICD (
Limitations
UNASSIGNED
Main limitation of the study is that quality of life was assessed for one single time point only and time since implantation differed significantly between S-ICD and TV-ICD. Furthermore our collective is younger, and, due to the high proportion of patients without cardiomyopathy, the mean EF is better than usual ICD collective. The absence of heart failure in about the half of our patients might have relevant impact on our QoL analysis.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
A relevant proportion of S-ICD patients expects an improvement of QoL by explantation of the device. Of note, this impression was not driven by the fear of receiving shocks but mainly by discomfort and pain caused by the pulse generator.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36387054
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S378741
pii: 378741
pmc: PMC9645128
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3027-3033Informations de copyright
© 2022 Thienel et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Clin Res Cardiol. 2017 May;106(5):317-321
pubmed: 27878381
N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 26;335(26):1933-40
pubmed: 8960472
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Dec;42(12):1541-1551
pubmed: 31677279
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 15;317:91-95
pubmed: 32512063
Eur Heart J. 2014 May;35(18):1186-94
pubmed: 24347317
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72
pubmed: 10158943
N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 16;341(25):1882-90
pubmed: 10601507
Circulation. 2021 Jan 5;143(1):7-17
pubmed: 33073614
Eur Heart J. 2015 Nov 1;36(41):2793-2867
pubmed: 26320108
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):225-37
pubmed: 15659722
N Engl J Med. 2002 Mar 21;346(12):877-83
pubmed: 11907286
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jun 27;2018:6028494
pubmed: 30050939
Heart. 2002 May;87(5):488-93
pubmed: 11997430
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Oct 30;4(11):
pubmed: 26518666
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jun 14;40(23):1862-1869
pubmed: 31155647
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 20;350(21):2151-8
pubmed: 15152060
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):526-536
pubmed: 32757521
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Dec 26;3(13):1475-1483
pubmed: 29759827