Advertisement

The influence of age on the psychological profile of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: results from the Italian population in a multicenter study conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association

  • Stefano FumagalliEmail author
  • Paolo Pieragnoli
  • Kristina H. Haugaa
  • Tatjana S. Potpara
  • Laura Rasero
  • Nicola Ramacciati
  • Giuseppe Ricciardi
  • Francesco Solimene
  • Giuseppe Mascia
  • Giosuè Mascioli
  • Giulia Zuo
  • Anna T. Roberts
  • Niccolò Marchionni
  • Radoslaw Lenarczyk
  • Serge Boveda
  • Nikolaos Dagres
Original Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are widely used to treat bradyarrhythmias or improve the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF).

Aims

To evaluate age-related (≤ 75 vs. > 75 years) attitudes, worries, psychological effects and needs in an Italian CIEDs population.

Methods

Patients attending their periodical ambulatory evaluation received a questionnaire conceived by the European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Initiatives Committee as part of a multicenter, multinational snapshot survey. Seven countries participated in the study, and 1646 replies were collected. Of these, 437 (27%) were from Italy. Present results refer to the Italian population only. CIEDs were stratified into devices to treat bradycardia or HF.

Results

The use of CIEDs was more common in advanced age. Older patients needed less information about CIEDs than younger ones (p = 0.044), who would prefer to be better informed about CIEDs-related consequences on psychologic profile (p = 0.045), physical (p < 0.001) and sexual (p < 0.001) activities, and driving limitations (p = 0.003). When compared to older subjects, younger individuals experienced more difficulties (p = 0.035), especially in their professional (p < 0.001) and private life (p = 0.033), feeling their existence was limited by the device (p < 0.001). Conversely, quality of life (HRQL) more often improved in the elderly (p = 0.001). Information about what to do with CIEDs at the end of life is scant independently of age.

Conclusions

HRQL after CIEDs implantation improves more frequently in older patients, while the psychological burden of CIEDs is usually higher in younger patients. End of life issues are seldom discussed.

Keywords

Cardiac implantable electronic devices CRT ICD Elderly End-of-life issues Quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the EHRA Electrophysiology Research Network Centers, which allowed to reach a relevant number of patients participating to the survey. Thanks to Enrico Antonini, DLit, Mrs. Angela Dichiara and Mrs. Patrizia Mirone, for their support in the conduction of the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the Helsinki declaration.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Brignole M, Auricchio A,  Baron-Esquivias G et al (2013) 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 15:1070–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fumagalli S, Valsecchi S, Boriani G et al (2011) Comparison of the usefulness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in three age-groups (< 65, 65–74 and ≥ 75 Years) (from the InSync/InSync ICD Italian Registry). Am J Cardiol 107:1510–1516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.01.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fumagalli S, Gasparini M, Landolina M et al (2014) Determinants of all-cause mortality in different age groups in patients with severe systolic left ventricular dysfunction receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (from the Italian ClinicalService Multicenter Observational Project). Am J Cardiol 113:1691–1696.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.02.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Padeletti L, Arnar DO, Boncinelli L et al (2010) EHRA Expert Consensus Statement on the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Europace 12:1480–1489.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq275 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cattorini P, Marchionni N (1994) Clinical decision-making and the “treat or not to treat” dilemma in geriatrics: ethical implications. Aging (Milano) 6:391–398Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haugaa KH, Potpara TS, Boveda S, Deharo JC, Chen J, Dobreanu D et al (2018) Patients’ knowledge and attitudes regarding living with implantable electronic devices: results of a multicentre, multinational patient survey conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 20:386–391.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux365 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S et al (2018) Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the american heart association. Circulation 137:e67–e492.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000558 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gadler F, Valzania C, Linde C (2015) Current use of implantable electrical devices in Sweden: data from the Swedish pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. Europace 17:69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu233 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manaouil C, Gignon M, Traulle S (2012) Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: patient education, information and ethical issues. Medicine law 31:355–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Comoretto RI, Facchin D, Ghidina M, Proclemer A, Gregori D (2017) Remote control improves quality of life in elderly pacemaker patients versus standard ambulatory-based follow-up. J Evaluat Clin Pract 23:681–689.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benzer W, Oldridge N, Anelli Monti M, Berger T, Hintringer F, Hofer S (2006) Clinical predictors of health-related quality of life after pacemaker implantation. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 118:739–743.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-006-0714-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleischmann KE, Orav EJ, Lamas GA, Mangione CM, Schron E, Lee KL et al (2006) Pacemaker implantation and quality of life in the mode selection trial (MOST). Heart rhythm 3:653–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.02.1031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nagy KV, Szeplaki G, Perge P, Boros AM, Kosztin A, Apor A et al (2017) Quality of life measured with EuroQol-five dimensions questionnaire predicts long-term mortality, response, and reverse remodelling in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Europace.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux342 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bogale N, Priori S, Cleland JG et al (2012) The European CRT survey: 1 year (9–15 months) follow-up results. Eur J Heart Fail 14:61–73.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfr158 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fumagalli S, Pieragnoli P, Ricciardi G et al (2016) Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves functional status and cognition. Int J Cardiol 219:212–217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leosdottir M, Sigurdsson E, Reimarsdottir G et al (2006) Health-related quality of life of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared with that of pacemaker recipients. Europace 8:168–174.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euj052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johansen JB, Pedersen SS, Spindler H, Andersen K, Nielsen JC, Mortensen PT (2008) Symptomatic heart failure is the most important clinical correlate of impaired quality of life, anxiety, and depression in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients: a single-centre, cross-sectional study in 610 patients. Europace 10:545–551.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eun073 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thylen I, Dekker RL, Jaarsma T, Stromberg A, Moser DK (2014) Characteristics associated with anxiety, depressive symptoms, and quality-of-life in a large cohort of implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients. J Psychosomatic Res 77:122–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill L, McIlfatrick S, Taylor BJ, Dixon L, Cole BR, Moser DK et al (2016) Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation discussions: Reality versus recommendations. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs J Work Group Cardiovasc Nurs Eur Soc Cardiol 15:20–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515115584248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kramer DB, Habtemariam D, Adjei-Poku Y et al (2017) The decisions, interventions, and goals in ImplaNtable Cardioverter-DefIbrillator TherapY (DIGNITY) pilot study. J Am Heart Assoc 6.  https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.006881
  21. 21.
    Pedersen SS, Knudsen C, Dilling K et al (2017) Living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: patients’ preferences and needs for information provision and care options. Europace 19:983–990.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw109 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kinch Westerdahl A, Sjoblom J, Mattiasson AC et al (2014) Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy before death: high risk for painful shocks at end of life. Circulation 129:422–429.  https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.113.002648 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fumagalli S, Chen J, Dobreanu D et al (2016) The role of the Arrhythmia Team, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to treatment of patients with cardiac arrhythmias: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace 18:623–627.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw090 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Fumagalli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paolo Pieragnoli
    • 2
  • Kristina H. Haugaa
    • 3
  • Tatjana S. Potpara
    • 4
  • Laura Rasero
    • 5
  • Nicola Ramacciati
    • 6
  • Giuseppe Ricciardi
    • 2
  • Francesco Solimene
    • 7
  • Giuseppe Mascia
    • 7
  • Giosuè Mascioli
    • 8
  • Giulia Zuo
    • 5
  • Anna T. Roberts
    • 1
  • Niccolò Marchionni
    • 1
  • Radoslaw Lenarczyk
    • 9
  • Serge Boveda
    • 10
  • Nikolaos Dagres
    • 11
  1. 1.Geriatric Intensive Care Unit and Geriatric Arrhythmia UnitUniversity of Florence and AOU CareggiFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Electrophysiology LaboratoryUniversity of Florence and AOU CareggiFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Oslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.University of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  5. 5.Department of Health Sciences, Department of Health ProfessionsUniversity of Florence and AOU CareggiFlorenceItaly
  6. 6.Department of Experimental and Clinical MedicineUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  7. 7.Montevergine Cardiology ClinicMercoglianoItaly
  8. 8.Clinical Institute Humanitas GavazzeniBergamoItaly
  9. 9.Silesian Center for Heart DiseasesZabrzePoland
  10. 10.Cardiology DepartmentClinique PasteurToulouseFrance
  11. 11.Department of ElectrophysiologyHeart Center of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations