4.1 Article

Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Device longevity is more important than smaller size: The patient's viewpoint

期刊

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1526-1529

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00671.x

关键词

pacemaker size; ICD size; pacemaker longevity; ICD longevity; patient preference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The size of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has been diminishing progressively. If two devices are otherwise identical in components, features and technology, the one with a larger battery should have a longer service life. Therefore, patients who receive smaller devices may require more frequent surgery to replace the devices. It is uncertain whether this tradeoff for smaller size is desired by patients. We surveyed 156 patients to determine whether patients prefer a larger, longer-lasting device, or a smaller device that is less noticeable but requires more frequent surgery. The effects of subgroups were evaluated; these included body habitus, age, gender, and patients seen at time of pulse generator replacement (PGR), initial implant, or follow-up. wAmong 156 patients surveyed, 151 expressed a preference. Of these, 90.1% preferred the larger device and 9.9% the smaller device (P < 0.0001). Among thin patients, 79.5% preferred a larger device. Ninety percent of males and 89.2% of females selected the larger device. Among younger patients ( < 72 years), 89.6% preferred the larger device, as did 90.5% of older patients (> 72 years). Of patients undergoing PGR or initial implants, 95% favored the larger device, as did 86% of patients presenting for follow-up. The vast majority of patients prefer a larger device to reduce the number of potential replacement operations. This preference crosses the spectrum of those with a previously implanted device, those undergoing initial implants, those returning for routine follow-up, and patients of various ages, gender, and habitus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据