ICD support groups: Are they still relevant now?
While implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) save lives in patients at risk for potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, ICD shocks may prompt fear and anxiety and cause potential psychological trauma in patients. Since the beginning of the ICD's broad use, healthcare professionals recognized the unique demands and experiences associated with this therapy. Some clinics responded by initiating patient-focused meetings broadly referred to as "ICD support groups" to address the mental health challenges in these patients. Decades of research have now underscored the importance of ICD patients' psychological and behavioral processes and their associations with adverse health outcomes. ICD patients frequently report disease-specific mental health symptoms, including ICD shock anxiety, poor device acceptance, body image concerns, and decreased physical activity, that require unique clinical expertise from professionals to effectively manage. The original impetus for ICD support groups persists, but relatively few ICD support groups remain active. Online offerings may have taken on some of these functions. We suggest that ICD support groups remain a strategic intervention to address patient psychological and lifestyle concerns. This paper reviews the value of ICD support groups in the United States, Australia, and Canada and analyzes the current state and potential value of ICD support groups.
Authors
- Ann Kirkness (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0243-0421)
- Lauren A. Rousseau
- Samuel F. Sears (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7863-3591)
- Tiffany Andrade
- Julie B. Shea
- Samantha McCrary
- Allana Fantin
Institutions
- Alberta Health Services (CA)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- East Carolina University (US)
- Royal North Shore Hospital (AU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Heart Rhythm O2
- Published
- 2025-04-06
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2025.03.021
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Immunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 1.59