European Society of Cardiology (NFESC), Cardiology Nurse Consultant, Bristol Heart Institute, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Aug;19(15-16):2081-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03031.x. Epub 2010 May 30.
This literature review aims to critically appraise any published studies that compare the experiences of patients with permanent pacemakers and those with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. It seeks to identify issues that are similar or unique to one or other group; whether identified needs are being met by current nursing practice and considers how any gaps might be addressed.
Increasing numbers of patients are receiving pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) as indications for devices continue to expand worldwide. Technical follow-up of such patients is well structured. There is an increasing body of knowledge regarding ICD patients' experiences with promising work testing recovery interventions but less seems to be known about pacemaker patients.
Systematic review.
Using an integrative approach, electronic searches using comprehensive search terms were supplemented by following reference lists and key journals from 1975-2008.
From the direct comparison studies identified, ICD patients who experience shocks are more likely to report lifestyle limitations than pacemaker patients. However, ICD and pacemaker patients share similar outcomes, with both groups reporting increased anxiety and depression. Whilst experiences of ICD patients have been well reported, experiences of patients receiving pacemakers for any reason and pacemakers or ICDs for heart failure (bi-ventricular devices or cardiac resynchronisation therapy - CRT) remain largely unknown. Although psychosocial interventions are suggested for both groups, these have apparently only been tested and reported for ICD patients.
Nurses internationally encounter increasing numbers of patients with pacemakers and ICDs from primary to tertiary clinical care settings, therefore knowledge of patient experiences relating to such devices and their impact is important to inform care planning. Whilst interventions to assist ICD patients are being tested, further research is required regarding the experiences of patients with contemporary pacemakers to inform care planning and potential nursing support interventions.
本文献综述旨在批判性评估比较永久性起搏器患者和植入式心脏复律除颤器（ICD）患者体验的任何已发表研究。它旨在确定对一组或另一组具有相似或独特的问题；当前护理实践是否满足已确定的需求，并考虑如何解决任何差距。
随着世界各地设备适应证的不断扩大，越来越多的患者接受起搏器和植入式心脏复律除颤器（ICD）。这些患者的技术随访结构良好。关于 ICD 患者的经验，有越来越多的知识，包括对恢复干预措施的有希望的测试工作，但对起搏器患者的了解似乎较少。
系统评价。
使用综合方法，使用全面的搜索词进行电子搜索，并补充了 1975 年至 2008 年的参考文献列表和主要期刊。
从确定的直接比较研究中可以看出，经历电击的 ICD 患者比起搏器患者更有可能报告生活方式受限。然而，ICD 和起搏器患者具有相似的结果，两组患者都报告焦虑和抑郁增加。虽然已经很好地报告了 ICD 患者的经验，但对于因任何原因接受起搏器治疗以及心力衰竭的患者（双心室设备或心脏再同步治疗 - CRT）的起搏器或 ICD 的经验仍然知之甚少。尽管建议对这两组患者进行心理社会干预，但这些干预措施显然仅针对 ICD 患者进行了测试和报告。
国际护士在从初级到三级临床护理环境中遇到越来越多的起搏器和 ICD 患者，因此了解与这些设备相关的患者体验及其影响对于护理计划非常重要。虽然正在测试协助 ICD 患者的干预措施，但需要进一步研究现代起搏器患者的经验，以告知护理计划和潜在的护理支持干预措施。
