|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||||||||
  Pacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologyVolume 30 Issue 4, Pages 463 - 471 Published Online: 9 Apr 2007 © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 129K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  Quality of Life Among Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients in the Primary Prevention Therapeutic Era This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Institute for Health Technology Studies (InHealth), Washington, DC. Dr. Groeneveld was additionally supported by a Research Career Development Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs' Health Services Research and Development Service. Copyright 2007, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2007, Blackwell Publishing, Inc. KEYWORDS
defibrillators
•
implantable
•
quality of life
(PACE 2007; 30:463–471) ABSTRACTBackground: Although patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death are the fastest growing segment of the ICD recipient population, the quality-of-life (QOL) effects of the ICD among primary prevention patients are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the health-related QOL among primary and secondary prevention ICD recipients, and to determine predictive factors for high or low QOL in each group. Methods: Forty-five primary prevention and 75 secondary prevention ICD recipients receiving routine care in electrophysiology clinics within the University of Pennsylvania Health System were assessed using several well-validated general and ICD-specific QOL instruments. Results: Between primary and secondary prevention patients, there were no significant differences in EuroQol 5D (medians: 0.84 vs 0.84, P = 0.71), Health Utilities Index (medians: 0.88 vs 0.85, P = 0.95), Short Form-12 aggregate physical summary (means: 45 vs 46, P = 0.64), and Short Form-12 aggregate mental summary (means: 46 vs 47, P = 0.93) scores. Both primary and secondary prevention patients viewed their devices favorably according to the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey scale, with no significant differences between group means (80 vs 83, P = 0.71). However, substantial fractions of both primary and secondary prevention recipients had particular concerns about lifting (40%), sexual activity (19%), and driving (14%). Conclusions: QOL does not significantly differ between primary prevention and secondary prevention ICD recipients. Device recipients had comparable QOL to published, nationwide QOL estimates among non-ICD patients of similar age. The ICD was highly acceptable to most primary and secondary prevention patients. Received November 16, 2006; revised December 9, 2006; accepted December 10, 2006. | 
|
