Decision regret in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients : A cross-sectional analysis on patients that regret their decision after ICD implantation.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are designed to deliver therapy in the event of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Despite their benefits, some ICD recipients regret their decision on device implantation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and consequences of recipients that regretted their decision after implantation. METHODS: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey of consecutive ICD recipients examined during a routine outpatient follow-up visit was conducted. Their level of depression and anxiety was assessed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 434 ICD recipients invited to the study, 423 (97.5%) agreed and completed the survey, 349 (83%) had a primary prevention indication, and 339 (80%) ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 41 recipients (9.7%) regretted their decision to undergo ICD implantation. These patients were: (1) younger (63 versus 69 years), (2) more frequently in New York Heart Association (NYHA) ≥2 functional class (63% versus 22%), (3) had higher education levels (more than high-school: 76% versus 60%), (4) felt that preoperative information was lacking (22% versus 4%), (5) had more complications in the perioperative period (15% versus 3%), (6) felt less safe after ICD implantation (54% versus 5%), and (7) considered more frequently ICD deactivation during near end-of-life situations (54% versus 29%). Mean QOL and HADS scores were significantly worse in these patients (36 versus 30 and 12 versus 8.8 points, respectively; p < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSION: Almost 10% of ICD recipients regretted their decision after implantation. Predictors included younger age, higher education levels, complicated perioperative period, and lack of preoperative information.

Phantom shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: impact of education level, anxiety, and depression.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are designed to deliver shocks in the event of ventricular arrhythmias. Some ICD recipients experience the sensation of ICD discharge in the absence of an actual discharge (phantom shock, PS). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and consequences of PS in ICD recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive ICD recipients were examined during a routine outpatient follow-up (FU) visit. Subjects completed a written survey; their level of depression and anxiety was assessed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 434 patients invited to the study, 423 (97.5%) ICD recipients agreed to and completed the survey; 349 (83%) had a primary prevention indication and 339 (80%) ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 27 patients (6.4%) reported a PS during a mean FU of 64 ± 44 months (5.4% in the primary prevention group and 10.8% in the secondary prevention group; p = 0.11). PS were related to higher education (≥bachelor's degree 41% versus 20%; p = 0.03), and more frequent in patients receiving adequate shocks during FU (34% versus 0.5%; p < 0.001). HADS score levels were higher following PS (15 ± 6 versus 8.8 ± 7.4; p < 0.001). The majority of patients reporting PS felt that the information provided to them prior to ICD placement was insufficient (22.2% versus 5.0%), that they needed psychological support after ICD implantation (26% versus 3%), and considered ICD deactivation in near end-of-life situations (59% versus 29%; p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: PS occur in 6.4% of all ICD recipients and are related to higher education and to patients that experienced adequate shocks during FU.

Left ventricular free wall rupture in myocardial infarction: A retrospective analysis from a single tertiary center.

OBJECTIVE: Left ventricular free wall rupture (LVFWR) is a rare but severe complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). During the era of pre-thrombolysis, autopsies revealed an incidence of approximately 8%. METHOD: The objective of this retrospective study was to analyze the current incidence of LVFWR and to identify predictors by comparing the AMI-cohort with LVFWR to those without. The control group involved a random selection of one in every ten patients who presented with acute myocardial infarction between 2005 and 2014. RESULT: A total of 5143 patients with AMI were treated at the Central Hospital, Bad Berka (71% men, median age 68 years). Out of these, seven patients with LVFWR were identified with an overall incidence of 0.14%. Clinically, LVFWR patients presented late to admission since symptom onset (median 24 h vs. 6.1 h; p < 0.0001), were more likely in cardiogenic shock (28.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.02) and were usually accompanied by emergency physicians (71.4% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.006). Higher troponin T (median 8.6 vs. 0.5 ng/ml; p < 0.0002), higher CRP (median 50 vs. 0.5 mg/l; p = 0.05) as well as a lower hematocrit-values (0.33 vs. 0.42; p = 0.04) were observed. All LVFWR patients were operated (100% vs. 1.6%; p < 0.001). The patients had lower rates of beta-blocker treatment (57.1% vs. 95.8%; p = 0.003). The 30-day mortality was significantly higher (42.9% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to the thrombolytic era, the current incidence of LVFWR with AMI, who reach the hospital alive, is significantly lower. However, 30-day mortality continues to be high.

Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of the treatment with cryoballoon (CB) compared to the treatment with traditional irrigated radiofrequency ablation (RF) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) and refractory to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD). DESIGN: We conducted a systemic review to find and include more than two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 20 patients in each of the CB and RF groups. Thereafter, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the treatment with CB and RF in primary outcomes including 1 year free from AF, complications and re-ablation procedures. Additionally, we evaluated procedure time and fluoroscopy duration in both groups. Risk of bias in the individual studies and across studies was assessed using Cochrane methods. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcome data were extracted from the time point 1 year after the procedure. The random-effects model was used to calculate the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. DATA SOURCES: Data sources utilized were PubMed and CENTRAL databases up to 16 June 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were RCTs in adults with pAF and refractory to AAD in which CB therapy, including 1st and 2nd generation CB, was compared to the traditional irrigated RF therapy. Clinical outcomes assessed in each RCT were 1 year AF-free survival, complication rates, re-ablations, fluoroscopy time and procedure time. RESULTS: The systematic review identified four randomized controlled trials that reported on comparative clinical outcomes involving 1284 patients. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that CB ablation had a non-significant higher success rate than RF therapy (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.72-1.77). However, our study showed a relatively higher rate of complications in the CB group (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.58-2.52). Furthermore, CB treatment was associated with a non-significant, shorter procedure time and marginally prolonged fluoroscopy time in comparison to RF treatment. CONCLUSION: Our systemic review and meta-analysis revealed further evidence that cryoballoon ablation is an equally effective alternative procedure to the standard radiofrequency treatment with a slightly, non-significant higher freedom from AF 1 year after the ablation and a shorter procedure time.