Device specific quality of life in subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations: results from the ATLAS multi-centre randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Newer innovative subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) offer an alternative to transverse ICDs (TV-ICDs), placing leads outside of the heart thereby potentially reducing lead-related complications. The ATLAS trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial, showed a significant reduction in perioperative complications in TV-ICD versus S-ICD patients. The following results report device-related quality-of-life (QoL) measured in the trial. QoL measures are recognized as key patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Purpose To compare TV-ICD and S-ICD post implantation device-related QoL in the ATLAS trial. Methods Sample included all randomized ATLAS trial patients. The Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) was completed at 1- and 6-months post implantation. The FPAS includes a total score and 4 subscale scores; 1) return to function, 2) device-related distress, 3) positive appraisal, and 4) body image concerns. Scores are scaled from 0-100, with total scores below 63 suggesting poor device acceptance. The primary analysis was based on complete cases and used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with 6-month scores as the dependent variable, group as the independent variable, and 1-month FPAS scores as the covariate. Change in FPAS total score over time within each group was explored using paired t-tests. Results There were 252 TV-ICD and 251 S-ICD patients enrolled in the main ATLAS trial, and of these, in the present analysis, 404 patients (197 TV-ICD; 207 S-ICD) had complete FPAS data. Sample mean age (SD) was 49.31 (11.54) years, males (74.3%) and Caucasian (83.7%). There were no substantive differences in patient characteristics between groups. The primary analyses found no differences between TV-ICD and S-ICD groups for FPAS total score (Mean Difference=-0.75; 95% CI, -3.15, 1.66; p=0.510) or FPAS subscale scores. Mean FPAS total scores increased from 74.43 (15.35) to 78.25 (15.88) and 73.73 (16.09) to 77.05 (16.13) between 1-month and 6-months in the TV-ICD and S-ICD groups respectively. The increase from 1-month to 6-months was statistically significant in both groups (p< 0.001). These findings suggest that regardless of ICD type, there is device acceptance in both groups from implantation and over time. Conclusion Analysis of the FPAS measure, a device-specific QoL measure, found both TV-ICD and S-ICD patients reported good acceptance of their devices, with no significant differences between groups for up to 6 months post implantation. These findings provide an important piece to the TV-ICD versus S-ICD line of inquiry in ICD patient populations particularly for this newer S-ICD innovation and can be included in decision making between health professionals and patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".