Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2012
Deficiencies in patients' comprehension of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Groarke John, Beirne Avril, Buckley Una, O'Dwyer Elisabeth, Sugrue Declan, Keelan Ted, O'Neill James, Galvin Joe, Mahon Niall
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients receive education before implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Patients' understanding of ICD therapy requires investigation.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out at two implant centers where patients are educated during a consenting process pre-ICD implantation. Questionnaires examining understanding of ICD therapy were completed during telephone interviews of patients with ICDs.
RESULTS: Of 75 patients interviewed, 62 (83%) were male. The median age at time of ICD implantation was 64 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.4; range: 29-82 years). The median interval from implantation to interview was 3 years (SD = 1.9; range: 0.1-9.0 years). Despite 83% (62 of 75) claiming to understand the reason for ICD implantation, no patient suggested arrhythmia termination when describing the indication. Of shock recipients, 60% (12 of 20) felt poorly prepared for shock therapy. Of patients who experienced a device-related complication, 83% (10 of 12) reported feeling inadequately forewarned of complications. Excluding patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (n = 6), 65% (45 of 69), 52% (36 of 69), 50% (35 of 69), and 61% (42 of 69) believe their ICD reduces risk of heart attack and improves breathing, exercise capacity, and heart function, respectively. Ninety-three percent (70 of 75) are satisfied with their decision to accept ICD therapy. Only 12% (9 of 75) believe they will want to inactivate therapies in setting of terminal illness.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite preimplantation education, patient comprehension of the risks and benefits of ICD therapy is poor. Patients' expectations of ICD therapy may be inappropriate. Education strategies before and after implantation require improvement.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out at two implant centers where patients are educated during a consenting process pre-ICD implantation. Questionnaires examining understanding of ICD therapy were completed during telephone interviews of patients with ICDs.
RESULTS: Of 75 patients interviewed, 62 (83%) were male. The median age at time of ICD implantation was 64 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.4; range: 29-82 years). The median interval from implantation to interview was 3 years (SD = 1.9; range: 0.1-9.0 years). Despite 83% (62 of 75) claiming to understand the reason for ICD implantation, no patient suggested arrhythmia termination when describing the indication. Of shock recipients, 60% (12 of 20) felt poorly prepared for shock therapy. Of patients who experienced a device-related complication, 83% (10 of 12) reported feeling inadequately forewarned of complications. Excluding patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (n = 6), 65% (45 of 69), 52% (36 of 69), 50% (35 of 69), and 61% (42 of 69) believe their ICD reduces risk of heart attack and improves breathing, exercise capacity, and heart function, respectively. Ninety-three percent (70 of 75) are satisfied with their decision to accept ICD therapy. Only 12% (9 of 75) believe they will want to inactivate therapies in setting of terminal illness.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite preimplantation education, patient comprehension of the risks and benefits of ICD therapy is poor. Patients' expectations of ICD therapy may be inappropriate. Education strategies before and after implantation require improvement.