Volume 12, Issue 3 pp. 401-405
Full Access

Subjective Consequences of Permanent Pacemaker Therapy in Patients Under the Age of Retirement

HANS MICKLEY

Corresponding Author

HANS MICKLEY

Department of Clinical Physiologym

Address for reprints: Hans Mickley, Department of Clinical Physiology, University Hospital, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.Search for more papers by this author
JAN PETERSEN

JAN PETERSEN

Department of Cardiology and Medicine B, University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Search for more papers by this author
BENT LYAGER NIELSEN

BENT LYAGER NIELSEN

Department of Cardiology and Medicine B, University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Search for more papers by this author
First published: March 1989
Citations: 15

Abstract

During a 5-year period, 81 patients ages 20 to 60 years old had implantation of a permanent cardiac pacemaker at the University Hospital, Odense. At follow-up, during 1985, the 73 survivors received a semi-structured questionnaire regarding subjective consequences of pacemaker therapy, and 72 people (98.6%) agreed to participate. The mean pacing period (range) was 33.8 (11–72) months. Surgical intervention was required in 14 patients (19.4%) during follow-up. Regarding all symptoms 67 patients (93.1%) perceived benefit from the pacemaker. The effectiveness of cardiac pacing was most pronounced in subjects suffering from syncope and/or dizziness. Eight patients (11.1%) perceived anxiety most frequently due to fear of pacing failure. Physical complaints were present in 17 patients (23.6%), and the discomfort was mainly due to the size of generator, pain/tenderness from the scar or a sensation of “impulses”/palpitations. To the majority (49 patients or 68.1 %) pacemaker treatment did not influence quality of sexual activity. Six patients (8.3%) perceived an improvement, whereas a corresponding number felt deterioration in sexual activity following pacemaker implantation. Pacemaker therapy had not affected life quality in 30 (41.7%) of the patients. However 31 patients (43%) felt an improvement, and only a minority of ten patients (13.9%) perceived deterioration in quality of life owed to pacemaker therapy.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.