Key result
An umbrella review of 14 systematic reviews found inconsistent quality of life outcomes and a high prevalence of psychological disorders among adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to synthesize the psychological, social, and quality of life outcomes of people with a cardiac implantable electronic device.
What are the psychological, social, and quality of life outcomes in adults with a cardiac implantable electronic device?
Systematic Review (n=14)
What are the psychological, social, and quality of life outcomes in adults with a cardiac implantable electronic device?
While some cardiac implantable electronic devices like CRT and pacemakers improve quality of life, ICD recipients have a high prevalence of psychological disorders, underscoring the need for psychosocial support.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Underscores need for psychosocial support in ICD recipients; confirms device-specific QoL benefits for CRT and pacemakers.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicmanis et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Cardiac implantable electronic device (n=14). Cardiac implantable electronic device vs. Controls or other device types was evaluated on Psychological, social, and quality of life outcomes. An umbrella review of 14 systematic reviews found inconsistent quality of life outcomes and a high prevalence of psychological disorders among adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: