Search

This review compiles scientific data about the real dangers faced by people with epilepsy (PWE) who drive. Those include risks of motor vehicle accidents (MVA) in PWE as compared with controls (individuals without epilepsy) and as compared with persons with other medical conditions that impact fitness to drive. Data regarding Accident rates as related to seizure free intervals (SFI), single vs. multiple seizure events, and/or antiseizure drug (ASD) taper and reintroduction are discussed. Variation in state, national, and international laws and guidance for non-commercial and commercial drivers is highlighted, along with some related reasons for driving restrictions. The review concludes by emphasizing the importance of physicians educating patients about local driving laws and about risks of ASD non-adherence. The need for a broader, multi-stakeholder re-examination of driving regulations for PWE is noted.

The ability to drive is a highly valued freedom in the developed world. Sudden incapacitation while driving can result in injury or death for the driver and passengers or bystanders. Cardiovascular conditions are a primary cause for sudden incapacitation and regulations have long existed to restrict driving for patients with cardiac conditions at high risk of sudden incapacitation. Significant variation occurs between these rules in different countries and legislatures. Quantification of the potential risk of harm associated with various categories of drivers has attempted to make these regulations more objective. The assumptions on which these calculations are based are now old and less likely to reflect the reality of modern driving. Ultimately, a more individual assessment of risk with a combined assessment of the medical condition and the patient’s driving behaviour may be appropriate. The development of driverless technologies may also have an impact on decision making in this field.

[No abstract]

Background Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is associated with driving restrictions which may have profound effects on the patient’s life. However, there is limited patient-reported data on the information given about driving restrictions, the adherence to the restrictions, the incidence of arrhythmic symptoms while driving, and the driving restrictions’ effect on ICD patients’ daily life and quality of life factors. A specific questionnaire was designed to investigate these objectives, intended for use in a nationwide ICD cohort. Methods The conceptual framework based on literature review and expert opinion was refined in qualitative semi-structured focus group interviews with ten ICD patients. Content validity was pursued through pre-testing, including expert review and 28 cognitive interviews with patients at all ICD implanting centres in Denmark. Finally, the Danish Pacemaker and ICD registry was used to randomly select 50 ICD patients with a first-time implantation between January 1, 2013 and November 30, 2016 for pilot testing, followed by a test-retest on 25 respondents. Test-retest agreement was assessed using kappa statistics or intraclass correlation coefficients. Results The pilot test achieved a response rate of 78%, whereof the majority were web-based (69%). Only 49% stated they had been informed about any driving restrictions after ICD implantation, whereas the number was 75% after appropriate ICD shock. Among respondents, 95% had resumed private driving, ranging from 1 to 90 days after ICD implantation. In those informed of a significant (≥ 1 month) driving ban, 55% stated the driving restrictions had impeded with daily life, especially due to limitations in maintaining employment or getting to/from work and 25% admitted they had knowingly been driving during the restricted period. There were six episodes of dizziness or palpitations not necessitating stopping the vehicle. Test-retest demonstrated good agreement of questionnaire items, with 69% of Kappa coefficients above 0.60. Conclusions We have developed a comprehensive questionnaire on ICD patients’ perspective on driving. Pre-testing and pilot testing demonstrated good content validity, feasible data collection methods, and a robust response rate. Thus, we believe the final questionnaire, distributed to almost 4000 ICD patients, will capture essential evidence to help inform driving guidelines in this population. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-018-0949-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Driving restrictions for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) may require significant lifestyle adjustment and affect patients’ psychological well-being. This study explored the prevalence of, and factors associated with, patient-reported decrease in quality of life due to driving restrictions in the first 2 months postimplantation. Methods: Dutch ICD patients (N = 334; median age, 64 [interquartile range, 55Y70) years; 81% male) completed questionnaires at the time of implantation and 4 months postimplantation, assessing their sociodemographic, psychological, and driving-related characteristics. Clinical baseline data were retrieved from patients’ medical records.Results: Nearly half of the patients (49%) reported decreased quality of life due todriving restrictions. Patient-reported reasons included dependency on others/public transport, (social) isolation, and inability to work. Patients reporting decreased quality of life were more likely to be younger (P = .01), to feel that the restriction lasts too long (P = .004), to have considered ICD refusal because of the restrictions (P = .03), and to have Type D personality (P = .02), anxiety (P = .05), depression (P = .003), and ICD-related concerns (P = .02).Multivariable analysis showed that being younger than 60 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09Y4.88; P = .03), feeling the driving restriction lasts too long (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.23Y2.55; P = .002), anddepression (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.09Y9.47; P = .035) were independently associated with decreased quality of life due to driving restrictions. Conclusions: This study indicated that a significant group of ICD patients may experience decreased quality of life because of the driving restrictions postimplantation. The restrictions seem to particularly affect patients who are younger and distressed and patients who feel that the restriction lasts too long.

Background:Dutch patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are restricted from driving for two months after implantation or shocks. This requires significant lifestyle adjustments and is one of the primary concerns of ICDpatients. Previous studies indicated that compliance with the driving restrictions is poor, but insight in socio-demographic, clinical and psychological factors associated with compliance is limited. Hence, this study aimed to explore compliance with the driving restrictions and associated factors in a large sample of Dutch ICD patients.Method:Dutch ICD patients (N = 313) completed an elaborative set of questionnaires at time of implantation and at four months after implantation, assessing socio-demographic, psychological and driving-related characteristics. Clinical datawere collected from the patients’ medical records.Results:A substantial subgroup (28%) of the patient sample (median age 64 (interquartile range = 55–71), 81% male) reported to have been noncompliant with the driving restrictions. Univariate analysis indicated that noncompliant patients more often considered refusing the ICD due to the restrictions, compared to compliant patients (19% versus 10%, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that the feeling of understanding the reason behind the driving restrictions was associated with better compliance (odds ratio = 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.02–4.56, p = 0.04). No other socio-demographic, clinical, psychological or driving-related factors were associated with compliance.Conclusion:A large number of ICD patients does not comply with the driving restrictions after implantation. This study emphasised the importance of the patient’s feeling of understanding the reason behind the restrictions

Introduction Over half of the UK population holds a driver’s licence. Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) guidelines are available for conditions from most specialties. Despite this, no focused training occurs in the undergraduate or postgraduate setting. We evaluate the impact of a teaching programme to improve guideline awareness. Methods A 25-point questionnaire was designed using the current DVLA guidelines. Five questions were included for the following fields: neurology, cardiology, drug and alcohol abuse, visual disorders and respiratory. This was distributed to doctors in training at five hospitals. Four weeks later, a single-session teaching programme was implemented. The questionnaire was redistributed. Preintervention and postintervention scores were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results 139 preteaching and 144 post-teaching questionnaires were completed. Implementation of a single-session teaching programme significantly improved the knowledge of DVLA guidelines in all five areas explored. Median scores: neurology, preteaching 40%, post-teaching 100%, p Conclusions Knowledge of DVLA guidelines among our cohort was poor. Implementation of a single-session teaching programme can significantly improve guideline knowledge and awareness, serving as a cost-effective intervention.

We evaluate the environmental and economic effects of Beijing’s driving restrictions. Based on daily data from multiple monitoring stations, air pollution falls 19% during every-other-day and 8% during one-day-per-week restrictions. Based on hourly viewership data, the number of television viewers during the restrictions increases 1.7 to 2.3% for workers with discretionary work time but is unaffected for workers without, consistent with the restrictions’ higher per-day commute costs reducing daily labor. Causal effects are identified from both time-series and spatial variation in air quality and intra-day variation in viewership. We provide possible reasons for the policy’s success, including evidence of high compliance based on parking garage entrance records. Our results contrast with previous findings of no pollution reductions from driving restrictions and provide new evidence on commute costs and labor supply

Aims We sought to characterise driving habits of contemporary implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients. Methods and results We performed a multicentre prospective observational study of consecutive ICD recipients. Non-commercial drivers with a valid licence were eligible. Patient and ICD data were recorded. All patients completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding their driving habits. Among 275 patients, 25 (9.1%) stopped driving permanently after ICD implantation. During a mean follow-up of 26.5 ± 4.5 months, 25.3% of patients received an ICD shock (52.5% appropriate). The median time to first shock was 7.0 (2.5, 17.5) months and was not significantly different between primary and secondary ICD patients. However, shocks (36.5 vs. 21.3%, P = 0.027) and recurrent shock episodes (17.5 vs. 6.2%, P = 0.011) were more common in secondary ICD patients. Physician-recommended driving restrictions were not recalled by 37.9% and not followed by 23.0% of patients. Overall, the mean duration of driving abstinence was 2.2 ± 2.9 and 3.6 ± 5.3 months for primary and secondary patients, respectively. Notably, 36.5% of secondary patients drove within 1 month. Eight patients (3.3%) received a shock while driving, five of which resulted in road traffic accidents. The annual risk of a shock while driving was 1.5%. Conclusions Patient driving behaviour following ICD implantation is variable, with over one-third not remembering and almost one-quarter not adhering to physician-directed driving restrictions. Over one-third of secondary ICD patients drive within 1 month despite physician recommendations. Further studies are required to establish the optimal duration of driving restriction in ICD recipients.