Assessment of patients’ perception of the use of an implantable cardiac electronic device

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Pacemaker dependence and underlying cardiovascular diseases (n=76). Intervention: Pacemaker. Primary outcome: Patients' perceptions of the implanted pacemaker, including physical impairment, psychological status, and individual needs.

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Patients with cardiac pacemakers demonstrate predominantly positive perceptions of device use, reporting high security, minimal physical impairment, and little disruption to emotional well-being, body image, or daily activities. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.CONFIRMATORY. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

Renata Elizabete Pagotti da Fonseca; Joyce Aparecida Turco Machado Francisco; Suéllen Rodrigues de Oliveira Maier; André Novo; Carina Aparecida Marosti Dessotte

doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2025-0299

January 1, 2026Revista Brasileira de EnfermagemOpen Access

Assessment of patients’ perception of the use of an implantable cardiac electronic device

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Pacemaker recipients report high satisfaction, with ~93% finding the device worth implanting.

n=76

Why the study?

Patients' perceptions after pacemaker implantation were not well characterized in this population.

Key Points

To assess patients' perceptions, emotional responses, and physical adaptations following artificial pacemaker implantation.
Descriptive, cross-sectional observational study conducted at a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.
Included a consecutive, non-probabilistic sample of 76 adult pacemaker recipients (mean age 68.3 years; 52.6% female; mean implant duration 9 years).
Administered a standardized questionnaire evaluating daily life interference, emotional well-being, body image, and technical concerns, analyzed via descriptive statistics.
Complete atrioventricular block was the primary indication rhythm for implantation (56.6%, n=43), followed by sinus node dysfunction (14.5%, n=11).
Most participants reported feeling no physical impairment from the device (73.7%, n=56), no interference with daily activities (72.4%, n=55), and no interference with leisure activities (73.7%, n=56).

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=76)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

P

Population

76 adult pacemaker users (mean age 68.3 years, 52.6% female) followed for a mean of 9 years post-implantation were surveyed regarding their device perceptions.

E

Exposure

Pacemaker implantation (assessment of patients' perceptions after device implantation)

O

Outcome

Patients' perceptions of the artificial cardiac device (including physical perceptions, concerns, anxiety, and individual needs), assessed via an adapted 23-question questionnairepatient reported

Limitations

The sample was drawn from a single university hospital by convenience and in a non-probabilistic manner, potentially introducing selection bias and limiting generalizability.
The predominance of professionally inactive participants made it difficult to analyze the impact of pacemakers on work activities.
The true reason for participant retirement (heart disease vs. other reasons) could not be adequately assessed.
Sample selected by convenience from a single university hospital (non-probabilistic), limiting generalizability and potentially introducing selection bias
Predominance of professionally inactive participants made a more in-depth analysis of the impacts of pacemakers on work activities difficult

Implication

Patients generally report positive adaptation to pacemaker implantation, feeling secure and well-informed, with minimal physical or emotional impairment.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: to assess patients' perceptions after pacemaker implantation. METHODS: a descriptive, cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a university hospital in the countryside of São Paulo, with a consecutive and non-probabilistic sample of adult patients with pacemakers. A questionnaire was used to assess patients' perceptions of pacemakers, with data analysis obtained by simple frequency and percentage of responses. RESULTS: of the 76 patients interviewed, the majority were female, had a partner, were inactive, had low levels of education and family income, with an average age of 68.3 years. The main reason for implant recommendation was complete atrioventricular block. Most (73.7%) reported no feelings of physical impairment, nor did they feel depressed or anxious. They also reported no changes in body image, daily activities, or leisure activities. Furthermore, they demonstrated a high level of confidence regarding the device use (61.8%). CONCLUSIONS: patients positively assessed the use of pacemakers.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Fonseca et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Pacemaker dependence and underlying cardiovascular diseases (n=76). Pacemaker was evaluated on Patients' perceptions of the implanted pacemaker, including physical impairment, psychological status, and individual needs. Patients reported positive perceptions of pacemaker use, with 93.4% stating the device was worth implanting, 73.7% reporting no physical impairment, and 61.8% feeling a high level of security.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6ad0fd3315427f6a8404057a https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2025-0299

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Assessment of patients’ perception of the use of an implantable cardiac electronic device

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Limitations

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Assessment of patients’ perception of the use of an implantable cardiac electronic device

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Limitations

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading