Physical function, psychological adjustment, and self-efficacy following sudden cardiac arrest and an initial implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in a social cognitive theory intervention: secondary analysis of a randomized control trial
Abstract
Background Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) survivorship results in unique issues in return to physical and psychological function. The purpose of the study was to compare recovery across the first year between SCA survivors and other arrhythmia patients who received a first-time implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prevention, participating in a social cognitive theory (SCT) intervention. Methods 168 (129 males, 39 females) who received an ICD for secondary prevention (SCA N = 65; other arrhythmia N = 103) were randomized to one of two study conditions: SCT intervention (N = 85) or usual care (N = 83). Outcomes were measured at baseline hospital discharge, 1, 3, 6, & 12 months: (1) Physical Function: Patient Concerns Assessment (PCA), SF-36 (PCS); (2) Psychological Adjustment: State Trait Anxiety (STAI), CES-D depression, SF-36 (MCS); (3) Self-Efficacy: Self-Efficacy (SCA-SE), Self-management Behaviors (SMB), Outcome Expectations (OE). Outcomes were compared over 12 months for intervention condition x ICD indication using general estimating equations. Results Participants were Caucasian (89%), mean age 63.95 ± 12.3 years, EF% 33.95 ± 13.9, BMI 28.19 ± 6.2, and Charlson Index 4.27 ± 2.3. Physical symptoms (PCA) were higher over time for SCA survivors compared to the other arrhythmia group ( p = 0.04), ICD shocks were lower in SCA survivors in the SCT intervention ( p = 0.01); psychological adjustment (MCS) was significantly lower in SCA survivors in the SCT…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 103 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.