Patients' Attitudes and Perceptions of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Potential Barriers to Appropriate Primary Prophylaxis

被引:28
|
作者
Yuhas, Jennifer
Mattocks, Kristin
Gravelin, Laura [2 ]
Remetz, Michael
Foley, John
Fazio, Richard [3 ]
Lampert, Rachel [1 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Sect Cardiovasc Med, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[2] Brown Univ, Sch Med, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[3] Eastern Connecticut Cardiol, Waterford, CT USA
来源
PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY | 2012年 / 35卷 / 10期
关键词
implantable cardioverter defibrillator; primary prevention; patient preferences; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; DECISION-MAKING; HEART-FAILURE; GUIDELINES; KNOWLEDGE; DISTRESS; DEVICES; RECALL; SEX;
D O I
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2012.03497.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Primary prophylaxis with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) improves mortality in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, ICDs are highly underutilized. We explored patients attitudes and perceptions of ICDs to better understand potential patient-related barriers to appropriate utilization. Methods: Records of patients visiting three outpatient cardiology clinics (June 2009January 2010) were reviewed and 133 with ejection fractions =35% and without an ICD were identified. Seventy-two met criteria for ICD placement. Twenty-five consented and were interviewed by telephone using a semistructured open-ended interview guide. Twelve individuals had accepted ICD referral, and 13 had declined. We analyzed transcripts of ICD refusers and acceptors using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Results: Five major themes emerged: (1) Patients who refused ICD referral demonstrated a lack of insight into their own risk potential. (2) Many patients who accepted ICD referral perceived that this was strongly recommended by their physicians, although many patients refusing did not. (3) Concerns over recall, malfunction, and surgical risk were common in both. (4) Many patients demonstrated inaccurate perceptions of ICD-related risks and lifestyle changes. Acceptors often reported these perceptions being addressed by their physician. (5) Feelings regarding invasive life-prolonging interventions played an important role in ICD referral refusal for some individuals. Conclusions: Refusal of ICD is common among primary prevention candidates. Common themes in the decision-making process include insight into personal risk of SCD, and perceived strength of the physician recommendation. Providers may want to consider assessment of patients individual understanding and perceptions when discussing ICD prophylaxis. (PACE 2012; 35:11791187)
引用
收藏
页码:1179 / 1187
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Programming implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in primary prevention: Higher or later
    Clementy, Nicolas
    Pierre, Bertrand
    Simeon, Edouard
    Lallemand, Benedicte
    Fauchier, Laurent
    Babuty, Dominique
    ARCHIVES OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, 2014, 107 (05) : 308 - 318
  • [32] Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with left ventricular noncompaction
    Kobza, Richard
    Jenni, Rolf
    Erne, Paul
    Oechslin, Erwin
    Duru, Firat
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2008, 31 (04): : 461 - 467
  • [33] Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Patients With Ischemic or Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy RESPONSE
    Kolodziejczak, Michalina
    Andreotti, Felicita
    Navarese, Eliano Pio
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2018, 168 (03) : 234 - 235
  • [34] Emergencies related to implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
    Pinski, SL
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2000, 28 (10) : N174 - N180
  • [35] Factors influencing psychological status and quality of life in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
    Kajanova, Alena
    Bulava, Alan
    Eisenberger, Martin
    NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY LETTERS, 2014, 35 : 54 - 58
  • [36] System survival of nontransvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators compared to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients
    Radbill, Andrew E.
    Triedman, John K.
    Berul, Charles I.
    Fynn-Thompson, Francis
    Atallah, Joseph
    Alexander, Mark E.
    Walsh, Edward P.
    Cecchin, Frank
    HEART RHYTHM, 2010, 7 (02) : 193 - 198
  • [37] Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: expanding indications
    Naccarelli, GV
    CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY, 2004, 19 (04) : 317 - 322
  • [38] Troubleshooting pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
    Scher, DL
    CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY, 2004, 19 (01) : 36 - 46
  • [39] Behavioural and emotional implications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the young and in athletes
    Dechert, Brynn E.
    CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG, 2017, 27 : S138 - S142
  • [40] Deactivation of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators
    Kramer, Daniel B.
    Mitchell, Susan L.
    Brock, Dan W.
    PROGRESS IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, 2012, 55 (03) : 290 - 299