No long-term psychological morbidity living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator under advisory: the Medtronic Marquis experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: It is unclear whether there is important psychological morbidity associated with living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) under advisory and whether this should be factored into decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our study focused on patients living with advisory Medtronic Marquis ICDs. Patient adjustment to the ICD was evaluated using a validated device-specific metric of patient acceptance, the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS). A comparison group of patients with other models of ICDs that were not under an advisory also completed the study measure. The questionnaire return rate was 86/122 (70.5%) in the advisory group and 94/134 (70.1%) in the non-advisory group. Only one patient in our clinic elected for generator change due to severe anxiety. There were no differences in demographic or clinical variables between the groups. There were no differences in the mean total FPAS score between the two patient groups (advisory patients 85.97 +/- 14.95 and 86.23 +/- 15.76 for non-advisory, P=0.340). Also there were no differences in any of the subscores. Correlates of poor device acceptance were younger age and a history of electrical storm. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of increased long-term psychological morbidity in patients living with an ICD under advisory compared with patients with an ICD not under advisory. Our data suggest that patients and physicians should avoid hasty decisions about ICD replacement for psychological reasons.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".