4.6 Article

Patients' knowledge and attitudes regarding living with implantable electronic devices: results of a multicentre, multinational patient survey conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 386-391

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eux365

Keywords

Cardiac implantable electronic devices; Pacemaker; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Patient preference; Patient knowledge; Complications; EHRA survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this patient survey was to analyse the knowledge, experiences, and attitudes regarding cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) in patients with pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), or cardiac resynchronization devices. Of the 1644 patients with CIEDs from seven European countries, 88% were over 50 years of age. Most patients (90%) knew what device they were implanted with and felt sufficiently informed about the indications for therapy. As many as 42% of patients needed additional information on the battery replacement and limitations in physical activity. The self-reported incidence of complications was 9%, and among these, a quarter of the respondents felt insufficiently informed about the possibility of complications and their management. The majority of patients (83%) were followed by face-to-face visits, which was the most commonly preferred follow-up strategy by the patients. Nearly 75% of the patients reported improved quality of life after device implantation, but about 40% had worries about their device. Less than 20% had discussed with their physician or thought about device handling in the end-of-life circumstances or end-stage disease. Notably, almost 20% of the ICD patients did not wish to answer the question regarding what they wanted to be done with their ICD in case of end-stage disease, indicating the challenges in approaching these issues.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available