Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29260463›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2018

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

N Jongejan, I Timmermans, J Elders, K Meijer, M Meine, P A Doevendans, H Versteeg, A E Tuinenburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Do we understand the rationale behind driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

N JongejanDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. N.Jongejan@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4089-1541
I TimmermansDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J EldersDepartment of Cardiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
K MeijerDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M MeineDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P A DoevendansDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
H VersteegDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A E TuinenburgDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDutch 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.

methodDutch 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionA 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.

Indexed as

ComplianceDriving restrictionsImplantable cardioverter defibrillator

Identifiers

PMID29260463
PMCPMC5783892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.