Manzoni Gian Mauro, Castelnuovo Gianluca, Compare Angelo, Pagnini Francesco, Essebag Vidal, Proietti Riccardo
Psychology Research Laboratory, Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS Verbania, Italy ; Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan Milano, Italy.
Department of Psychology, University of Bergamo Bergamo, Italy.
Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 4;6:39. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00039. eCollection 2015.
The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) saves lives but clinical experience suggests that it may have detrimental effects on mental health. The ICD shock has been largely blamed as the main offender but empirical evidence is not consistent, perhaps because of methodological differences across studies.
To appraise methodologies of studies that assessed the psychological effects of ICD shock and explore associations between methods and results.
A comprehensive search of English articles that were published between 1980 and 30 June 2013 was applied to the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, NHS HTA database, PsycINFO, Sciencedirect and CINAHL.
Only studies testing the effects of ICD shock on psychological and quality of life outcomes were included. Data were extracted according to a PICOS pre-defined sheet including methods and study quality indicators.
Fifty-four observational studies and six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Multiple differences in methods that were used to test the psychological effects of ICD shock were found across them. No significant association with results was observed.
Methodological heterogeneity of study methods is too wide and limits any quantitative attempt to account for the mixed findings. Well-built and standardized research is urgently needed.
植入式心脏复律除颤器（ICD）可挽救生命，但临床经验表明它可能对心理健康产生不利影响。ICD电击在很大程度上被认为是主要原因，但实证证据并不一致，这可能是由于各项研究的方法存在差异。
评估研究ICD电击心理效应的研究方法，并探讨方法与结果之间的关联。
对1980年至2013年6月30日期间发表的英文文章进行全面检索，检索范围涵盖以下电子数据库：PubMed、EMBASE、英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所卫生技术评估数据库、心理学文摘数据库、科学Direct数据库和护理学与健康领域数据库。
仅纳入测试ICD电击对心理和生活质量结果影响的研究。根据预先定义的PICOS表格提取数据，包括方法和研究质量指标。
54项观察性研究和6项随机对照试验符合纳入标准。发现它们在用于测试ICD电击心理效应的方法上存在多种差异。未观察到与结果有显著关联。
研究方法的方法学异质性过大，限制了对这些混合研究结果进行任何定量分析的尝试。迫切需要开展精心设计且标准化的研究。
