Key result
Primary prevention ICDs linked to higher trait anxiety and more device worries vs secondary prevention.
Why the study?
Little is known about the influence of ICD indications on quality of life and psychological disturbances in patients with ICDs for primary versus secondary prevention.
Does the indication for an ICD (primary vs. secondary prevention) affect quality of life and psychological distress in outpatients?
Cross-Sectional (n=179)
Yes
Does the indication for an ICD (primary vs. secondary prevention) affect quality of life and psychological distress in outpatients?
Absolute Event Rate: 41.7% vs 34.7%
p-value: p=0.001
Patients receiving ICDs for primary prevention experience higher levels of anxiety and lower quality of life compared to those receiving them for secondary prevention, highlighting the need for psychological monitoring in this group.
Primary prevention ICD patients may need anxiety screening; hypothesis-generating for differential distress and requires prospective confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been established for primary and secondary prevention of fatal arrhythmias. However, little is known about the influence of ICD indications on quality of life (QOL) and psychological disturbances. This study aimed to examine whether there were differences in QOL and psychological distress in patients that have an ICD for primary or secondary prevention of fatal arrhythmias. METHODS: A multicenter survey of 179 consecutive outpatients (29.1% primary prevention) with ICD implantations completed the Short Form-8 (SF-8), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Worries about ICD (WAICD). RESULTS: Patients with an ICD for primary prevention had a higher trait anxiety score and worries about ICD score than patients with an ICD for secondary prevention (41.7±12.4 vs. 34.7±12.3, p=0.001 and 39.6±18.0 vs. 30.0±18.9, p=0.002, respectively), even after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. In multivariable analysis of variance, primary prevention ICD recipients reported a poorer QOL on the vitality subscale of the SF-8. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, which mostly consisted of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I and II subjects, primary prevention ICD recipients were more prone to experience worries about their ICD, anxiety, and a poorer QOL compared to secondary prevention ICD recipients. In clinical practice, primary prevention ICD patients should be closely monitored. If warranted, they should be offered psychological intervention, as anxiety and low QOL were predictors of mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahmawati et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients (n=179). Primary prevention ICD indication vs. Secondary prevention ICD indication was evaluated on Trait anxiety score (p=0.001). Primary prevention ICD indication was associated with higher trait anxiety (41.7 vs 34.7, p=0.001) and more worries about the ICD (39.6 vs 30.0, p=0.002) compared to secondary prevention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: