Key result
Permanent pacemaker therapy in patients aged 20 to 60 years provided perceived benefit in 93.1% of patients, with 43% reporting an improvement in quality of life.
Why the study?
What are the subjective consequences and impacts on quality of life of permanent pacemaker therapy in patients under the age of retirement?
Observational (n=72)
No
What are the subjective consequences and impacts on quality of life of permanent pacemaker therapy in patients under the age of retirement?
Permanent pacemaker therapy in working-age patients is generally associated with perceived symptomatic benefit and improved quality of life, though a significant minority experience physical complaints or anxiety.
During a 5-year period, 81 patients ages 20 to 60 years old had implantation of a permanent cardiac pacemaker at the University Hospital, Odense. At follow-up, during 1985, the 73 survivors received a semi-structured questionnaire regarding subjective consequences of pacemaker therapy, and 72 people (98.6%) agreed to participate. The mean pacing period (range) was 33.8 (11-72) months. Surgical intervention was required in 14 patients (19.4%) during follow-up. Regarding all symptoms 67 patients (93.1%) perceived benefit from the pacemaker. The effectiveness of cardiac pacing was most pronounced in subjects suffering from syncope and/or dizziness. Eight patients (11.1%) perceived anxiety most frequently due to fear of pacing failure. Physical complaints were present in 17 patients (23.6%), and the discomfort was mainly due to the size of generator, pain/tenderness from the scar or a sensation of "impulses"/palpitations. To the majority (49 patients or 68.1%) pacemaker treatment did not influence quality of sexual activity. Six patients (8.3%) perceived an improvement, whereas a corresponding number felt deterioration in sexual activity following pacemaker implantation. Pacemaker therapy had not affected life quality in 30 (41.7%) of the patients. However 31 patients (43%) felt an improvement, and only a minority of ten patients (13.9%) perceived deterioration in quality of life owed to pacemaker therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mickley et al. (1989) conducted an observational in Permanent cardiac pacemaker (n=72). Permanent cardiac pacemaker therapy was evaluated on Perceived benefit from the pacemaker. Permanent pacemaker therapy in patients aged 20 to 60 years provided perceived benefit in 93.1% of patients, with 43% reporting an improvement in quality of life.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: