Psychological Impact of Surveillance in Patients with a Defibrillator Lead under Advisory: A Prospective Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads are subject to technical failures and the impact of the resulting public advisories on patient welfare is unclear. The psychological status of patients who received an advisory for their Medtronic Fidelis ICD lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) and followed either by self-surveillance for alarm or home monitoring with CareLink was evaluated prospectively and compared to patients with ICDs not under advisory. METHODS: One hundred sixty consecutive consenting patients (90 alarms, 24 Carelinks, 46 controls) were recruited within 1.5 years of advisory notification. Advisory patients were seen immediately before being told that the automatic lead surveillance utilized since the advisory had been inadequate in warning of impending fracture, as well as 1 and 6 months after programming was optimized. Depression, anxiety, quality of life (QoL), and ICD-related concerns were assessed. RESULTS: Symptoms of depression and state anxiety were experienced by 31% and 48% of patients, respectively. QoL was impaired on all subscales. No significant group differences in distress and ICD-related concerns emerged at baseline or at follow-up. At baseline, alarm patients reported greater limitations because of body pain compared to controls (P < 0.05). All patients showed a significant reduction in body pain-related QoL at the final versus first two evaluations (P < 0.001). Advisory patients were significantly less satisfied with surveillance at follow-up than at baseline (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was limited evidence for worse psychosocial functioning in those at risk for ICD lead fracture, irrespective of surveillance method. However, many control and advisory patients experienced chronic distress for which counseling may prove beneficial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".