Psychopathology in Patients with ICDs over Time: Results of a Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effects of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and ICD shocks on psychological state have previously been studied. However, it is still unclear how health-related quality-of-life changes over time using standardized assessments. We sought to characterize the effects of ICDs and ICD shocks on psychological outcomes. METHODS: Three hundred-eight patients receiving ICDs were prospectively identified. Baseline QOL assessments including standardized psychological surveys [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36)] were obtained within 2 months of device implantation and at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Outcomes including ICD shocks were followed over the 12-month study period. RESULTS: The number of patients meeting criteria for anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at baseline (78/223, 35%) was higher than at 6 (34/223, 15%) or 12 (34/223, 15%) months (P < 0.01). There was a significant improvement over time in HADS (P < 0.001) and IES-R (PTSD) scores (P < 0.001). Amongst the 20 patients who received ICD shocks, no significant differences were observed in IES-R, SF-36, or HADS scores when compared with those who did not receive shocks at any time point. Patients who experienced electrical storms (N = 5) had significantly higher baseline PTSD scores (29.6 +/- 11.4 vs 14.6 +/- 11.6, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving ICDs have significant rates of baseline psychopathology after implantation. However, psychological assessment scores tend to improve with time. ICD shocks do not appear to significantly impact psychological state. These results suggest the importance of close screening and referral for possible psychopathology in patients receiving ICDs, especially in the peri-implant period.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".