Psychological Adjustment in ICD Patients Living With Advisory Fidelis Leads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Psychological Adjustment and Fidelis ICD Leads. INTRODUCTION: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) advisory notices present treatment dilemmas for physicians and patients. On one side, the risk of device malfunction and the likely severity of clinical sequelae have to be estimated. This estimate has to be weighed against the risks of surgery to replace the advisory component. It is unclear whether there is important psychological morbidity associated with living with an ICD under advisory and whether this should be factored into decision making. The study had 2 objectives: (1) to examine whether there is adverse psychological adjustment when an ICD is under advisory, and (2) to assess the psychological sequel of advisory ICD component malfunction. METHODS: This study focused on the Sprint Fidelis advisory. All patients in our practice who still had an in service Medtronic Fidelis lead were included in the study. Three groups were compared: advisory group but no fracture (n = 249), advisory group with lead fracture (n = 24), and a control group (n = 143). For both objectives, we used a general anxiety and depression instrument and also device-specific measures of psychological well being. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: First, there was no evidence of differences in the psychological functioning of patients at risk of ICD lead malfunction compared to a control group. Second, patients who had experienced an ICD lead fracture had adverse psychological morbidity compared to control patients, and this appeared, primarily, to be related to receiving inappropriate shock(s) at the time of the fracture.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".