Pacemakers patients perception of daily life activities and follow-up: a French survey

Abstract

Background: Patients may have misconceptions about pacemakers arising from popular notions or outdated information. The aim of our study was to assess patients' knowledge about pacemakers after implantation. Material and Methods: We carried out a multicenter survey in 8 French centers as from January 2012 to January 2011. In each center, patients received usual information (delivered by nurses and doctors) about pacemaker implantation and function, as well as about their habits after implantation. They signed a consent form before implantation. One to 7 days after implantation, each patient received a questionnaire to evaluate his perceptions on information and consent, risks associated with pacemaker implantation, follow up, ability to perform various routine activities (daily life activities, use of electrical devices) and to undergo medical imaging tests. Results: We included 185 patients. The mean age was 75.4 + 10.5 years (40- 93 yrs) and 59.6% were men. The intervention was a primary implantation in 87% of patients. 75.3% of patients remembered that they had received information and 80% that they had signed a consent form in the perioperative period. A large number of patients considered many routine activities as unsafe, such as sleeping on the side of the pacemaker (11.7%), swimming (15%), driving automobiles (17.3%) and passing through metal detectors (47.2%). Patients had also misconceptions about using induction hobs (38.3%) and arc welding equipment (32.5%). As regards medical imaging, 8%, 5.5% and 6.3% of patients considered unsafe to undergo scanners, radiography and echography respectively, and 38% did not know if they could undergo MRI exams. As regards medical follow up, 11% of patients thought they did not need heart medications and 16.8% that they were exempt from monitoring by a cardiologist. In univariate analysis, the factors associated to misconceptions about pacemakers were an age above 75 years and a primary implantation. Conclusion: The results of our study highlight patients' misperceptions on life with a pacemaker. This should lead cardiologists to better inform patients at the qtime of pacemaker implantation, allowing improvement in patient's knowledge and quality of life.