Evidence Hub

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: an International Study

Valérie Lévesque, L. Laplante, A. Shohoudi, S. Apers, A. Kovacs, K. Luyckx, C. Thomet, W. Budts et al.

Heart Rhythm, 2019

3,188 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly used to prevent sudden deaths in the growing population of adults with congenital heart disease (CHD). Yet, little is known about their impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed and compared PROs in adults with CHD with and without ICDs.

METHODS

A propensity-based matching weight analysis was conducted to evaluate PROs in an international cross-sectional study of adults with CHD from 15 countries across 5 continents.

RESULTS

A total of 3,188 patients were included: 107 with ICDs and 3,081 weight-matched controls without ICDs. ICD recipients averaged 40.1±12.4 years of age, with >95% having moderate or complex CHD. Defibrillators were implanted for primary and secondary prevention in 38.3% and 61.7%, respectively. Perceived health status, psychological distress, sense of coherence, and health behaviours did not differ significantly in patients with and without ICDs. However, ICD recipients had a more threatening view of their illness (relative % difference 8.56, P=0.011). Those with secondary compared to primary prevention indications had a significantly lower quality of life score (linear analogue scale 72.0±23.1 versus 79.2±13.0, P=0.047). Marked geographic variations were observed. Overall sense of well-being, assessed by a summary score that combines various PROs, was significantly lower in ICD recipients (versus controls) from Switzerland, Argentina, Taiwan, and USA.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 3,188 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free