Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T11:21:44.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient-reported outcomes using a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: results from a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2023

Pamela Aidelsburger Open the ORCID record for Pamela Aidelsburger [Opens in a new window] ,
Janine Seyed-Ghaemi  and
Diana Bonderman
Pamela Aidelsburger*
Affiliation:
CAREM GmbH, Königsdorf, Germany
Janine Seyed-Ghaemi
Affiliation:
CAREM GmbH, Königsdorf, Germany
Diana Bonderman
Affiliation:
Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Favoriten Clinic, Vienna, Austria
*
*Author for correspondence: Pamela Aidelsburger, E-mail: p.aidelsburger@carem.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in adult patients with high risk for sudden cardiac arrest.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in Medline (via PubMed) and Cochrane Library in February 2022 and included studies with a study population ≥18 years and prescribed WCD. PRO include health-related quality of life (QoL), symptoms, utilities, or satisfaction ratings. Study selection was done by two reviewers independently using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of studies as well as data extraction was performed by one author and approved by a second author. Results of the included studies are presented quantitatively.

Results

One randomized controlled trial (RCT), one comparative non-randomized trial, and three single-arm trials were included. QoL was assessed in four studies, but with different assessment tools. One study additionally evaluated the change in depressive symptoms and anxiety and one study focused on acceptability of WCD but evaluated items that are closely related to QoL. Results of the RCT show no statistically significant difference in QoL assessed by SF-36 and EQ-5D comparing WCD and Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. One comparative study reports an improvement in depressive symptoms and anxiety within groups but no significant difference between groups. Further, one single-arm study reported improvement in QoL between baseline and day 90 and day 180.

Conclusions

The available evidence demonstrates that the usage of WCD is not affecting PRO, like QoL, depressive symptoms or anxiety negatively.

Keywords

wearable cardioverter defibrillatorWCDsudden cardiac arrestpatient-reported outcomesPRO
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , 2023 , e1
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Nolan, JP, Soar, J, Zideman, DA, et al. European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2010 Section 1. Executive summary. Resuscitation. 2010;81(10):1219–1276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Khatib, SM, Stevenson, WG, Ackerman, MJ, et al. AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society. Circulation. 2018;138(13):e272–e391.Google Scholar
Piccini, JP Sr., Allen, LA, Kudenchuk, PJ, et al. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A science advisory from the American heart association. Circulation. 2016;133(17):1715–1727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, HU, Goldenberg, I, Moss, AJ. Risk stratification for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: The role of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. Eur Heart J. 2013 34:2230–2242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lackermaier, K, Schuhmann, CG, Kubieniec, M, et al. Impairment of quality of life among patients with wearable cardioverter defibrillator therapy (LifeVest®): A preliminary study. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:6028494.Google Scholar
Cheung, C, Olgin, J, Lee, B. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators: A review of evidence and indications. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2021;31(3):196–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aidelsburger, P, Seyed-Ghaemi, J, Guinin, C, Fach, A Effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators in the treatment of sudden cardiac arrest – Results from a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;30:1–9.Google Scholar
Calvert, M, Blazeby, J, Altman, DG, et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309(8):814–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig Boltzman-Institut. Methodenhandbuch für health technology assessment version 1.2012. Wien: Gesundheit Österreich GmbH; 2012. [cited 2022 Jan 04] Available from: https://hta.lbg.ac.at/uploads/tableTool/UllCmsPage/gallery/Methodenhandbuch.pdf.Google Scholar
Moga, C, Guo, B, Schopflocher, D, Harstall, C. Development of a quality appraisal tool for case series studies using a modified Delphi technique. Edmonton AB: Institute of Health Economics; 2012.Google Scholar
Burch, AE, Colley, BJ, Döring, M, et al. Increased quality of life among newly diagnosed patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the months after initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy and wearable cardioverter defibrillator prescription. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021;36(6):589–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, R, Combes, N, Defaye, P, et al. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a transient risk of sudden cardiac death: the WEARIT-France cohort study. Europace. 2021;23(1):73–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, M, Michels, G, Eberhardt, F, et al. Anxiety, depression and quality of life in acute high risk cardiac disease patients eligible for wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Results from the prospective multicenter CRED-registry. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, CC, Olgin, JE, Pletcher, M, et al. The impact of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator on quality of life: Insights from the VEST trial. Circulation. 2020;142(Suppl. 3): Abstract No. 14913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olgin, JE, Pletcher, MJ, Vittinghoff, E, et al. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(13):1205–1215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ettinger, S, Stanak, M, Szymanski, P, et al. Wearable cardioverter defibrillators for the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest: A health technology assessment and patient focus group study. Med Devices (Auckl). 2017;10:257–271.Google ScholarPubMed
Barsheshet, A, Kutyifa, V, Vamvouris, T, et al. Study of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in advanced heart-failure patients (SWIFT). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28:778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Aidelsburger et al. supplementary material

Aidelsburger et al. supplementary material

Download Aidelsburger et al. supplementary material(File)
File 65.1 KB