Do we understand the rationale behind driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator?

Netherlands Heart Journal, Jan 2018

S. W. E. Baalman, J. R. de Groot

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12471-017-1072-2.pdf

Do we understand the rationale behind driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator?

Do we understand the rationale behind driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator? S. W. E. Baalman 0 J. R. de Groot 0 0 Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , The Netherlands Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have restrictions with regards to driving a motor vehicle. The Dutch Health Counsel initially recommended a 6month driving restriction after ICD implantation for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death [1]. This was reduced to a 2-month restriction in 2004 [2], and recently even further in patients with a primary ICD indication to 2 weeks [3]. Driving restrictions in ICD patients are essentially based on two studies published in the late 1990 s. A survey by Curtis et al. found that 30 (10.5%) of 286 ICD shocks during driving resulted in accidents. However, the estimated injury and fatality rate for ICD patients was significantly lower than in the general population [4]. Jung et al. estimated the risk of harm (RH) to other road users or innocent bystanders posed by a driver implanted with an ICD, using the RH formula created by The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference [5, 6]. With the estimated annual risk of sudden cardiac death or incapacitation (SCI) as most important factor influencing this formula, the annual RH rate remained below the set cutoff value of 0.0005% in private ICD drivers but rose above the cutoff value in commercial drivers with an ICD. Subsequently, several risk of harm estimations have been published to establish evidence-based driving restrictions after ICD implantation or ICD shocks while driving [7]. This has led to a worldwide difference in driving restrictions in ICD patients [8]. As there is a lack of data regarding syncope symptoms in ICD patients while driving, the overall syncope rate in ICD patients has been used instead in most studies and RH calculations [8]. Also, recommendations are mostly based on older reports in a population of ICD patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease. As there are - many other factors that may influence the risk of syncope or (in)appropriate shocks in ICD patients, how will the changing clinical profile of ICD patients influence these recommendations? For example, what will the risk of harm be of subcutaneous ICD patients, a relatively young population with less comorbidities? Or how about patients with a congenital heart disease or genetically determined arrhythmia syndrome, who experience a relatively high number of inappropriate shocks [ 9, 10 ]? Limited ‘real world’ studies on the incidence of ICD shocks or syncope while driving, or car accidents in ICD patients have been published. Albert et al. examined the risk of ICD shocks while driving of patients enrolled in the TOVA study [ 11 ]. There was an increase in the incidence of shocks for VT or VF 30 min after, but not during driving. Akiyama et al. reported an annual accident rate in ICD patients that was lower than that in the general driving population in the US [ 12 ]. Eleven out of 171 (6%) of driving ICD patients were involved in car accidents as reported by Trappe et al. One of these 11 patients experienced an ICD shock due to VF, without any implications as the shock occurred after the accident [ 13 ]. In patients with a primary prevention indication, event rates tend to be even lower [ 14, 15 ]. In contrast, Bjerre et al. reported a 50% increase in traffic accidents involving ICD patients [16]. In that study the control group was only matched by age and gender and, although higher than the control group, the rate of car accidents in ICD patients was low without any observed deaths. In this issue of the Netherlands Heart Journal, Jongejan et al. report a study regarding compliance of legal driving restrictions in Dutch ICD patients. For that, ICD patients completed a set of questionnaires, assessing drivingrelated characteristics at the time of implantation and after 4 months of follow-up [ 17 ]. Non-compliance of the driving restriction was reported by 28% of 313 patients. A multivariate analysis showed that the feeling of understanding the reason behind the driving restrictions was associated with better compliance. Taken together, it seems that the risk of being involved in a car accident as ICD recipient is low, and that there are very limited data that having an ICD increases the risk of dying in a traffic accident. Jongejan et al. show us that patient understanding of the driving restrictions improves compliance, but our main question is: do we understand this legislation ourselves? Funding J.R. de Groot is supported by a NWO/ZonMW VIDI grant 016.146.310. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Neth Heart J 1. Gezondheidsraad . Rijgeschiktheid van personen met een geïmplanteerde cardioverter-defibrillator . Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2000 . 2. Commissie Schalij . Rijgeschiktheid van personen met een ICD: een advies tot herziening van de regelgeving . Leiden: Commissie Schalij; 2004 . 3. Staatscourant . Regeling van de Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. 2017 . https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2017 - 69981.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2017 . 4. Curtis AB , Conti JB , Tucker KJ , Kubilis PS , Reilly RE , Woodard DA . Motor vehicle accidents in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator . J Am Coll Cardiol . 1995 ; 26 : 180 - 4 . 5. Jung W , Anderson M , Camm AJ , et al. Recommendations for driving of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators . Study Group on 'ICD and Driving' of the Working Groups on Cardiac Pacing and Arrhythmias of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J . 1997 ; 18 : 1210 - 9 . 6. Simpson C , Dorian P , Gupta A , et al. Assessment of the cardiac patient for fitness to drive: drive subgroup executive summary . Can J Cardiol . 2004 ; 20 ( 13 ): 1314 - 20 . 7. Thijssen J , Borleffs CJ , van Rees JB , et al. Driving restrictions after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: an evidencebased approach . Eur Heart J . 2011 ; 32 : 2678 - 87 . 8. Watanabe E , Abe H , Watanabe S . Driving restrictions in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers . J Arrhythm . 2017 ; 33 : 594 - 601 . 9. Vehmeijer JT , Brouwer TF , Limpens J , et al. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in adults with congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Eur Heart J . 2016 ; 37 : 1439 - 48 . 10. Nordkamp OLRA , Postema PG , Knops RE , et al. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator harm in young patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of inappropriate shocks and complications . Heart Rhythm . 2016 ; 13 ( 2 ): 443 - 54 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm. 2015 . 09 .010. 11. Albert CM , Rosenthal L , Calkins H , et al. Driving and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks for ventricular arrhythmias: results from the TOVA study . J Am Coll Cardiol . 2007 ; 50 : 2233 - 40 . 12. Akiyama T , Powell JL , Mitchell LB , Ehlert FA , Baessler C . Resumption of driving after life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia . N Engl J Med . 2001 ; 345 : 391 - 7 . 13. Trappe HJ , Wenzlaff P , Grellman G . Should patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators be allowed to drive? Observations in 291 patients from a single center over an 11-year period . J Interv Card Electrophysiol . 1998 ; 2 : 193 - 201 . 14. Wilkoff BL , Williamson BD , Stern RS , et al. Strategic programming of detection and therapy parameters in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators reduces shocks in primary prevention patients: results from the PREPARE (Primary Prevention Parameters Evaluation) study . J Am Coll Cardiol . 2008 ; 52 : 541 - 50 . 15. Saeed M , Hanna I , Robotis D , et al. Programming implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with primary prevention indication to prolong time to first shock: results from the PROVIDE study . J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol . 2014 ; 25 : 52 - 9 . 16. Bjerre J , et al. Risk of motor vehicle accidents in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator - a Danish nationwide study . Presentation at: ESC 2016 . 2016 . 17. Jongejan N , Timmermans I , Elders J , et al. Driving restrictions for Dutch patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: compliance and associated factors . Neth Heart J . 2018 ; 26 . https://doi. org/10.1007/s12471-017-1067-z.


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12471-017-1072-2.pdf

S. W. E. Baalman, J. R. de Groot. Do we understand the rationale behind driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator?, Netherlands Heart Journal, 2018, 1-2, DOI: 10.1007/s12471-017-1072-2