Assessment of quality of life and ICD shock-related anxiety in Asian patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the PainFree SST study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduces mortality in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. However, it is not known if the psychological status of ICD patients differs by geography. The aim of this analysis is to compare Quality of Life (QoL) and ICD shock-related anxiety between ICD patients in Asian with those in other countries. Methods The PainFree SST study was a prospective, multicenter, global study that enrolled 2770 patients including 225 from from Asia (181 from Japan, 25 from India, and 19 from Malaysia). The EuroQol 5-D (EQ-5D) measured QoL and the Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS) measured ICD shock-related anxiety. These questionnaires were administered bi-annually and monthly for 6 months after a shock. Change in QoL and shock anxiety was analyzed used linear mixed models for repeated measures. Results: Both the EQ-5D health score and FSAS score were higher in Asian patients compared to patients in the other countries post-implant (EQ-5D: 69.5 ± 18.3 points vs 66.5 ± 19.3 points, p<0.0001, FSAS: 19.7 ± 9.4 points vs 16.4 ± 7.7 points, p<0.0001), and stayed higher for the entire follow-up period (Figure 1). The EQ-5D health score was significantly reduced after a shock (Asian: -18.1 points, p<0.0001; other countries: -7.5 points, p<0.0001) with a greater reduction in Asian patients (p=0.0035) . Recovery in the month following a shock was greater in Asian patients (+19.8 vs +3.6 points, p<0.0001). The FSAS score was significantly increased after a shock (Asian: +6.4 points, p<0.0001; other countries: +4.8 points, p<0.0001) and the increase was similar between geographies (p=0.20). The recovery effect at 1 month was greater in Asian patients (-5.8 vs -1.7 points, p=0.0003) (Figure 2). Conclusions Asian patients were more anxious about a shock in spite of greater QoL, compared with those in other countries. After a shock, Asian patients had a greater decrease in QoL and a similar increase in anxiety but recovery was greater in both measures in the month following a shock.Figure 1Figure 2
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".