'Heart-rate correcting device may up car accident risk'

People with an implanted device used to treat irregular hearbeats - called arrhythmia - may have an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents, a new study has warned.
Researchers found that the risk of traffic accidents increased by 50 per cent in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compared to age and gender matched controls.
"Driving after ICD implantation is an area of great debate and concern for both doctors and patients," said Jenny Bjerre from Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Denmark.
"Our study provides contemporary data suggesting that the risk of motor vehicle accidents is in fact increased following ICD implantation when compared to controls," said Bjerre.

ICDs are widely used to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with an increased risk of life-threatening arrhythmias (primary prevention) and in patients who have survived a life-threatening arrhythmia, including cardiac arrest (secondary prevention).
The number of ICD implantations has increased dramatically over the past decades.

Due to the risk of arrhythmias and potential loss of consciousness while driving, patients with an ICD are temporarily restricted from driving following ICD implantation and/or ICD shock, researchers said.
However, contemporary data to support these recommendations are lacking and the restrictions have a negative influence on patients' quality of life.
Using nationwide registers, researchers identified all Danish residents who received a first ICD for primary or secondary prevention between 2008 and mid-2012.

Motor vehicle accidents were recorded from nationwide registers on accidents and deaths.
The study included 4,874 ICD patients and a control group of 9,748 subjects matched by age and gender. Participants were 63 years old on average.
During an average follow-up period of 2.5 years, 2.3 per cent of ICD patients were in contact with a hospital following a motor vehicle accident, compared to only 1.7 per cent of the control population.
Over time, this translated into a 51 per cent increased risk of motor vehicle accidents in ICD patients compared to controls. There was no detectable difference in accident risk between primary and secondary prevention ICD patients.