DREAM-ICD-II Study

BACKGROUND

Regulatory authorities of most industrialized countries recommend 6 months of private driving restriction after implantation of a secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). These driving restrictions result in significant inconvenience and social implications. This study aimed to assess the incidence rate of appropriate device therapies in contemporary recipients of a secondary prevention ICD.

METHODS

This retrospective study at 3 Canadian tertiary care centers enrolled consecutive patients with new secondary prevention ICD implants between 2016 and 2020.

RESULTS

For a median of 760 days (324, 1190 days), 721 patients were followed up. The risk of recurrent ventricular arrhythmia was highest during the first 3 months after device insertion (34.4%) and decreased over time (10.6% between 3 and 6 months, 11.7% between 6 and 12 months). The corresponding incidence rate per 100 patient-days was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35-0.64) at 90 days, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.17-0.45) at 180 days, and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33) between 181 and 365 days after ICD insertion (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of arrhythmic syncope resulting in sudden cardiac incapacitation was 1.8% within the first 90 days and subsequently dropped to 0.4% between 91 and 180 days (P<0.001) after ICD insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence rate of appropriate therapies resulting in sudden cardiac incapacitation in contemporary recipients of a secondary prevention ICD is much lower than previously reported and declines significantly after the first 3 months. Lowering driving restrictions to 3 months after the index cardiac event seems safe, and revision of existing guidelines should be considered in countries still adhering to a 6-month period. Existing restrictions for private driving after implantation of a secondary prevention ICD should be reconsidered.

Driving following defibrillator implantation: a nationwide register-linked survey study

AIMS

Patients are restricted from driving following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation or shock. We sought to investigate how many patients are aware of, and adhere to, the driving restrictions, and what proportion experience an ICD shock or other cardiac symptoms while driving.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a nationwide survey of all living Danish residents 18 years or older who received a first-time ICD between 2013 and 2016 (n = 3913) and linked their responses with nationwide registers. Of 2741 respondents (47% primary prevention, 83% male, median age 67 years), 2513 (92%) held a valid driver's license at ICD implantation, 175 (7%) of whom had a license for professional driving. Many drivers were unaware of driving restrictions: primary prevention 58%; secondary prevention 36%; post-appropriate shock 28%; professional drivers 55%. Almost all (94%) resumed non-professional driving after ICD implantation, more than one-third during the restricted period; 35% resumed professional driving. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, 5 (0.2%) reported receiving an ICD shock while driving, one of which resulted in a traffic accident. The estimated risk of harm was 0.0002% per person-year.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide study, many ICD patients were unaware of driving restrictions, and more than one third resumed driving during a driving restriction period. However, the rate of reported ICD shocks while driving was very low.

Driving Restrictions and Early Arrhythmias in Patients Receiving a Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DREAM-ICD) Study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend 4 weeks of private driving restriction after implantation of a primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). These driving restrictions result in significant inconvenience and social implications. Advances in medical treatment and ICD programming have lowered the overall rate of device therapies. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of ICD therapies at 30, 60, and 180 days after implantation.

METHODS

Driving Restrictions and Early Arrhythmias in Patients Receiving a Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DREAM-ICD) was a retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 Canadian university centres enrolling patients with new implantation of a primary-prevention ICD. Device programming was standardised according to current guidelines. A total of 803 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

The cumulative rates of appropriate ICD therapies at 30, 60, and 180 days were 0.12%, 0.50%, and 0.75%, respectively. There was no syncope during the first 6 months. The median duration to the first appropriate ICD therapy was 208 (range 23-1109) days after implantation. The rate of inappropriate ICD therapies at 30 days was only 0.2%. Overall, < 13.6% of all appropriate ICD therapies occurred within the first 6 months after implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of appropriate ICD therapies within the first 30 days after device insertion is extremely low in contemporary primary prevention cohorts with guideline-concordant device programming. There was no increased risk for ventricular arrhythmia early after ICD insertion. The results of DREAM-ICD suggest the need for a revision of the existing driving restrictions for primary-prevention ICD recipients.

A Review of Driving Restrictions in Patients at Risk of Syncope and Cardiac Arrhythmias Associated with Sudden Incapacity: Differing Global Approaches to Regulation and Risk

The ability to drive is a highly valued freedom in the developed world. Sudden incapacitation while driving can result in injury or death for the driver and passengers or bystanders. Cardiovascular conditions are a primary cause for sudden incapacitation and regulations have long existed to restrict driving for patients with cardiac conditions at high risk of sudden incapacitation. Significant variation occurs between these rules in different countries and legislatures. Quantification of the potential risk of harm associated with various categories of drivers has attempted to make these regulations more objective. The assumptions on which these calculations are based are now old and less likely to reflect the reality of modern driving. Ultimately, a more individual assessment of risk with a combined assessment of the medical condition and the patient's driving behaviour may be appropriate. The development of driverless technologies may also have an impact on decision making in this field.

Driving following defibrillator implantation: development and pilot results from a nationwide questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is associated with driving restrictions which may have profound effects on the patient's life. However, there is limited patient-reported data on the information given about driving restrictions, the adherence to the restrictions, the incidence of arrhythmic symptoms while driving, and the driving restrictions' effect on ICD patients' daily life and quality of life factors. A specific questionnaire was designed to investigate these objectives, intended for use in a nationwide ICD cohort.

METHODS

The conceptual framework based on literature review and expert opinion was refined in qualitative semi-structured focus group interviews with ten ICD patients. Content validity was pursued through pre-testing, including expert review and 28 cognitive interviews with patients at all ICD implanting centres in Denmark. Finally, the Danish Pacemaker and ICD registry was used to randomly select 50 ICD patients with a first-time implantation between January 1, 2013 and November 30, 2016 for pilot testing, followed by a test-retest on 25 respondents. Test-retest agreement was assessed using kappa statistics or intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The pilot test achieved a response rate of 78%, whereof the majority were web-based (69%). Only 49% stated they had been informed about any driving restrictions after ICD implantation, whereas the number was 75% after appropriate ICD shock. Among respondents, 95% had resumed private driving, ranging from 1 to 90 days after ICD implantation. In those informed of a significant (≥ 1 month) driving ban, 55% stated the driving restrictions had impeded with daily life, especially due to limitations in maintaining employment or getting to/from work and 25% admitted they had knowingly been driving during the restricted period. There were six episodes of dizziness or palpitations not necessitating stopping the vehicle. Test-retest demonstrated good agreement of questionnaire items, with 69% of Kappa coefficients above 0.60.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a comprehensive questionnaire on ICD patients' perspective on driving. Pre-testing and pilot testing demonstrated good content validity, feasible data collection methods, and a robust response rate. Thus, we believe the final questionnaire, distributed to almost 4000 ICD patients, will capture essential evidence to help inform driving guidelines in this population.

Driving restrictions for Dutch patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator : Compliance and associated factors

Background

Dutch patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are restricted from driving for two months after implantation or shocks. This requires significant lifestyle adjustments and is one of the primary concerns of ICD patients. Previous studies indicated that compliance with the driving restrictions is poor, but insight in socio-demographic, clinical and psychological factors associated with compliance is limited. Hence, this study aimed to explore compliance with the driving restrictions and associated factors in a large sample of Dutch ICD patients.

Method

Dutch ICD patients (N = 313) completed an elaborative set of questionnaires at time of implantation and at four months after implantation, assessing socio-demographic, psychological and driving-related characteristics. Clinical data were collected from the patients’ medical records.

Results

A substantial subgroup (28%) of the patient sample (median age 64 (interquartile range = 55–71), 81% male) reported to have been noncompliant with the driving restrictions. Univariate analysis indicated that noncompliant patients more often considered refusing the ICD due to the restrictions, compared to compliant patients (19% versus 10%, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that the feeling of understanding the reason behind the driving restrictions was associated with better compliance (odds ratio = 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.02–4.56, p = 0.04). No other socio-demographic, clinical, psychological or driving-related factors were associated with compliance.

Conclusion

A large number of ICD patients does not comply with the driving restrictions after implantation. This study emphasised the importance of the patient’s feeling of understanding the reason behind the restrictions.

Fitness to Drive in Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Medical students are taught little or nothing about the medical considerations related to the driving of motor vehicles. Physicians treating patients with cardiovascular disease need to acquire competence in traffic medicine in order to be able to advise them about their fitness to drive.

METHODS

We present the current governmental regulations and recommendations concerning fitness to drive in patients with cardiovascular disease. We also review pertinent publications that were retrieved by a selective search in PubMed with the search terms "cardiovascular disease and traffic accidents" and "cardiovascular disease and traffic deaths" for the decade 2007-2016, as well as further publications collected by us individually.

RESULTS

Cardiovascular disease can make a driver lose control of a vehicle without warning and thereby lead to an accident. The main pathophysiological mechanisms of sudden loss of control are disturbances of brain perfusion (e.g., syncope with or without cardiac arrhythmia, sudden cardiac death due to ventricular fibrillation or asystole, stroke, aneurysm rupture) and marked general weakness (e.g., after major surgery or in cardiac insufficiency).

CONCLUSION

Patients with cardiovascular disease should be advised by their physicians about their fitness to drive, and the discussion should be documented in writing. Because of the German law on the confidentiality of medical data, only the affected patient should receive this information, with very few exceptions.