Driving restrictions after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: an evidence-based approach
ABSTRACT Little evidence is available regarding restrictions from driving following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation or following first appropriate or inappropriate shock. The purpose of the current analysis was to provide evidence for driving restrictions based on real-world incidences of shocks (appropriate and inappropriate).
A total of 2786 primary and secondary prevention ICD patients were included. The occurrence of shocks was noted during a median follow-up of 996 days (inter-quartile range, 428-1833 days). With the risk of harm (RH) formula, using the incidence of sudden cardiac incapacitation, the annual RH to others posed by a driver with an ICD was calculated. Based on Canadian data, the annual RH to others of 5 in 100 000 (0.005%) was used as a cut-off value. In both primary and secondary prevention ICD patients with private driving habits, no restrictions to drive directly following implantation, or an inappropriate shock are warranted. However, following an appropriate shock, these patients are at an increased risk to cause harm to other road users and therefore should be restricted to drive for a period of 2 and 4 months, respectively. In addition, all ICD patients with professional driving habits have a substantial elevated risk to cause harm to other road users during the complete follow-up after both implantation and shock and should therefore be restricted to drive permanently.
The current analysis provides a clinically applicable tool for guideline committees to establish evidence-based driving restrictions.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Joep Thijssen, May 26, 2015
Article: Electrical Storm in Children[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Electrical storm (ES) presents a difficult management problem that has predominantly been described in adults and there are limited published data relating to children. We set out to characterize ES in children to assist management based on published literature and own institutional experience. We retrospectively analyzed the records of children presenting with ES to our institution between July 2001 and July 2011 and conducted a systematic literature review. Four children were identified (median age: 5.7 years, range: 3.3-9.6 years, one male). Each ES was of different character and different management strategies were used. All patients were alive at a median follow-up of 5.7 years and all had received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Two patients were felt to have catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, one possible long QT syndrome and one the "short-coupled" variant of torsades de pointes. At least three of our four patients had possible iatrogenic contribution to their ES. Forty-seven cases of ES in children with variable management strategies were identified from the published literature. ES is a rare medical emergency in children with multiple etiologies requiring individualized management.Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 12/2012; 36(3). DOI:10.1111/pace.12050 · 1.25 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIMS: We sought to characterise driving habits of contemporary implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients.METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicentre prospective observational study of consecutive ICD recipients. Non-commercial drivers with a valid licence were eligible. Patient and ICD data were recorded. All patients completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding their driving habits. Among 275 patients, 25 (9.1%) stopped driving permanently after ICD implantation. During a mean follow-up of 26.5 ± 4.5 months, 25.3% of patients received an ICD shock (52.5% appropriate). The median time to first shock was 7.0 (2.5, 17.5) months and was not significantly different between primary and secondary ICD patients. However, shocks (36.5 vs. 21.3%, P = 0.027) and recurrent shock episodes (17.5 vs. 6.2%, P = 0.011) were more common in secondary ICD patients. Physician-recommended driving restrictions were not recalled by 37.9% and not followed by 23.0% of patients. Overall, the mean duration of driving abstinence was 2.2 ± 2.9 and 3.6 ± 5.3 months for primary and secondary patients, respectively. Notably, 36.5% of secondary patients drove within 1 month. Eight patients (3.3%) received a shock while driving, five of which resulted in road traffic accidents. The annual risk of a shock while driving was 1.5%.CONCLUSIONS: Patient driving behaviour following ICD implantation is variable, with over one-third not remembering and almost one-quarter not adhering to physician-directed driving restrictions. Over one-third of secondary ICD patients drive within 1 month despite physician recommendations. Further studies are required to establish the optimal duration of driving restriction in ICD recipients.Europace 09/2012; 15(2). DOI:10.1093/europace/eus254 · 3.05 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: In view of the increasing number of implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), the number of people suffering from so-called "multiple ICD shocks" is also increasing. The delivery of more than five shocks (appropriate or inappropriate) in 12 months or three or more shocks (so called multiple shocks) in a short time period (24 hours) leads to an increasing number of patients suffering from severe psychological distress (anxiety disorder, panic disorder, adjustment disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder). Untreated persons show chronic disease processes and a low rate of spontaneous remission and have an increased morbidity and mortality. Few papers have been published concerning the psychotherapeutic treatment for these patients. Objective: The aim of this study is to develop a psychotherapeutic treatment for patients with a post-traumatic stress disorder or adjustment disorder after multiple ICD shocks. Design: Explorative feasibility study: Treatment of 22 patients as a natural design without randomisation and without control group. The period of recruitment was three years, from March 2007 to March 2010. The study consisted of two phases: in the first phase (pilot study) we tested different components and dosages of psychotherapeutic treatments. The final intervention programme is presented in this paper. In the second phase (follow-up study) we assessed the residual post-traumatic stress symptoms in these ICD patients. The time between treatment and follow-up measurement was 12 to 30 months. Population: Thirty-one patients were assigned to the Department of Psychocardiology after multiple shocks. The sample consisted of 22 patients who had a post-traumatic stress disorder or an adjustment disorder and were willing and able to participate. They were invited for psychological treatment. 18 of them could be included into the follow-up study. Methods: After the clinical assessment at the beginning and at the end of the inpatient treatment a post-treatment assessment with questionnaires followed. In this follow-up measurement, minimum 12 months after inpatient treatment, posttraumatic stress was assessed using the "Impact of Event Scale" (IES-R). Setting: Inpatient treatment in a large Heart and Thorax Centre with a Department of Psychocardiology (Kerckhoff Heart Centre). Results: From the 18 patients in the follow-up study no one reported complaints of PTSD. 15 of them reported a high or even a very high decrease of anxiety and avoidance behaviour. Conclusions: The fist step of the treatment development seems to be successful. It shows encouraging results with an acceptable dosage. The second step of our work is in process now: we evaluate the treatment manual within other clinical institutions and a higher number of psychotherapists. This leads in the consequence to a controlled and randomised comparison study.12/2013; 10:Doc09. DOI:10.3205/psm000099