Key result
Primary prophylaxis ICD indication was not associated with poorer quality of life or greater distress compared to secondary prophylaxis across five identified studies.
Why the study?
Does ICD implantation for primary prophylaxis improve or worsen quality of life and distress compared to secondary prophylaxis in patients receiving an ICD?
Population
Patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, based on a review of 5 studies with sample…
Comparison
ICD implantation for primary prophylaxis vs ICD implantation for secondary prophylaxis
Design
Systematic_review
Follow-up
2-12 months
Authors
Loading...
Reassures on equivalent QoL and distress for primary prophylaxis ICDs; confirms comparable patient-reported outcomes versus secondary in systematic data.
Systematic Review
Does ICD implantation for primary prophylaxis improve or worsen quality of life and distress compared to secondary prophylaxis in patients receiving an ICD?
This review suggests that primary prophylaxis ICD implantation does not adversely impact patient-centered outcomes compared to secondary prophylaxis, which may reassure patients during shared decision-making.
Pedersen et al. (2009) conducted a systematic review in Life-threatening arrhythmias requiring ICD. Primary prophylaxis ICD indication vs. Secondary prophylaxis ICD indication was evaluated on Patient-centered outcomes (anxiety, depression, disease-specific, or general QoL). Primary prophylaxis ICD indication was not associated with poorer quality of life or greater distress compared to secondary prophylaxis across five identified studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: