HRS Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy

Patient perceptions of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is a class I recommendation for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions to occur between physicians and heart failure patients. Few studies have reported the patient's perspective on the timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions.

AIM

To determine patient awareness, preferences and timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions.

DESIGN

Grounded theory was used to collect and analyze interview data from 25 heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, from the Heart Function Clinic at University Health Network (Toronto, Canada).

RESULTS

The sample (n = 25) was predominately male (76%) with an average age of 62 years. Patients identified three stages where they felt implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation should be discussed: (1) prior to implantation, (2) with any significant deterioration but while they were of sound mind to engage in and communicate their preferences and (3) at end of life, where patients wished further review of their previously established preferences and decisions about implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation. Most patients (n = 17, 68%) said they would consider deactivation, six (24%) were undecided and two (8%) were adamant they would never turn it off.

CONCLUSION

The patient preferences identified in this study support the need to include information on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation at implant, with change in clinical status and within broader discussions about end-of-life treatment preferences. Using this process to help patients determine and communicate their implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation preferences may reduce the number of patients experiencing distressing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks at end of life.

Compassionate deactivation of ventricular assist devices in pediatric patients

Despite greatly improved survival in pediatric patients with end-stage heart failure through the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), heart failure ultimately remains a life-threatening disease with a significant symptom burden. With increased demand for donor organs, liberalizing the boundaries of case complexity, and the introduction of destination therapy in children, more children can be expected to die while on mechanical support. Despite this trend, guidelines on the ethical and pragmatic issues of compassionate deactivation of VAD support in children are strikingly absent. As VAD support for pediatric patients increases in frequency, the pediatric heart failure and palliative care communities must work toward establishing guidelines to clarify the complex issues surrounding compassionate deactivation. Patient, family and clinician attitudes must be ascertained and education regarding the psychological, legal and ethical issues should be provided. Furthermore, pediatric-specific planning documents for use before VAD implantation as well as deactivation checklists should be developed to assist with decision-making at critical points during the illness trajectory. Herein we review the relevant literature regarding compassionate deactivation with a specific focus on issues related to children.

Considerations in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices at End of Life

Since the introduction of implantable cardiac pacemakers in 1958 and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in 1980, these devices have been proven to save and prolong lives. Pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy are deemed life-sustaining therapies. Despite these life-saving technologies, all patients ultimately will reach the end of their lives from either their heart disease or development of a terminal illness. Clinicians may be faced with patient and family requests to withdraw these life-sustaining therapies. The purpose of this article is to educate clinicians about the legal and ethical principles that underlie withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies such as device deactivation and to highlight the importance of proactive communication with patients and families in these situations.

Refusing Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) Replacement in Elderly Persons-The Same as Giving Up Life: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

More than 20% of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are implanted in the elderly population aged 80 years or older. In recent scientific literature it is suggested to consider termination of ICD therapy, rather than ICD replacement, in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of persons above 80 years of age concerning replacement of the ICD battery, and the shared communication and decision making with healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative, explorative study, inspired by Ricoeur's narrative, with a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach, involving 11 ICD patients older than 80 years. The study period was 2011-2012.

RESULTS

The meaning of the patients' experiences of living with an ICD was formulated into two themes: (1) "Feeling safe with the ICD" with the subthemes: "The ICD-a life keeper," "The battery level is important," "ICD shock-no problem." (2) "The physician is an authority" with the subthemes: "Being trustful," "Feeling fine knowing nothing," "Criminal act to deactivate the ICD."

CONCLUSION

The elderly ICD recipients tended not to be aware of the option of declining replacement of their ICD. They tended to expect to have their ICD replaced and not to be involved actively in decision making concerning this. Healthcare professionals have an obligation to discuss options and ensure that every patient understands these. More research is needed to change practices and create more realistic, person-centered, ethically acceptable, and constructive healthcare for elderly persons with an ICD.

Palliative Care Consultation and Associated End-of-Life Care After Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Deactivation

The presence of cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators complicates making end-of-life (EOL) medical decisions. Palliative care/medicine consultation (PCMC) may benefit patients and primary providers, but data are lacking. We retrospectively reviewed 150 charts of patients who underwent device deactivation at our tertiary care center (between November 1, 2008, and September 1, 2012), assessing for PCMC and outcomes. Overall, 42% of patients received a PCMC, and 68% of those PCMCs specifically addressed device deactivation. Median survival following deactivation was 2 days, with 42% of deaths occurring within 1 day of deactivation. There was no difference in survival between the groups. The EOL care for patients with implanted cardiac devices is complex, but PCMC may assist with symptom management and clarification of goals of care for such patients.

Ethical considerations for turning off pacemakers and defibrillators

The 2010 guidelines regarding management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) conclude that patient requests to deactivate these devices at the end of life should be honored. Nevertheless, many clinicians and patients report feeling uncomfortable discontinuing such therapies, particularly pacemakers. If the principles of clinical ethics are followed, turning off CIEDs at the end of life is morally permissible. Clinicians managing CIEDs should discuss the option of deactivation with the patient at the time of implantation and be prepared to reopen the question as warranted by the patient's clinical course and respect for the patient's authentic values.

[Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator at the end of life]

Brady- and tachyarrhythmias at the end of life are common observations. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators answer with antibrady and antitachycardia pacing, which will not be associated with any complaints of the dying patient. In contrast, defibrillation and cardioversion shocks are extremely painful. Therefore shocks should be inactivated at the end of life. Family doctors, internists, emergency physicians and paramedics are unable to inactivate shocks. Deactivation of shocks at the end of life is not comparable to euthanasia or assisted suicide, but allow the patient to die at the end of an uncurable endstage disease. Deactivation of shocks should be discussed with the patient before initial implantation of the devices. The precise moment of the inactivation at the end of life should be discussed with patients and relatives. There is no common recommendation for the time schedule of this decision; therefore it should be based on the individual situation of the patient. Emergency health care physicians need magnets and sufficient information to inactivate defibrillators. The wishes of the patient have priority in the decision process and should be written in the patient's advance directive, which must be available in the final situation. However the physician must not necessarily follow every wish of the patient. As long as the laws in the European Union are not uniform, German recommendations are needed.

The patient perspective: Quality of life in advanced heart failure with frequent hospitalisations

End of life is an unfortunate but inevitable phase of the heart failure patients' journey. It is often preceded by a stage in the progression of heart failure defined as advanced heart failure, and characterised by poor quality of life and frequent hospitalisations. In clinical practice, the efficacy of treatments for advanced heart failure is often assessed by parameters such as clinical status, haemodynamics, neurohormonal status, and echo/MRI indices. From the patients' perspective, however, quality-of-life-related parameters, such as functional capacity, exercise performance, psychological status, and frequency of re-hospitalisations, are more significant. The effects of therapies and interventions on these parameters are, however, underrepresented in clinical trials targeted to assess advanced heart failure treatment efficacy, and data are overall scarce. This is possibly due to a non-universal definition of the quality-of-life-related endpoints, and to the difficult standardisation of the data collection. These uncertainties also lead to difficulties in handling trade-off decisions between quality of life and survival by patients, families and healthcare providers. A panel of 34 experts in the field of cardiology and intensive cardiac care from 21 countries around the world convened for reviewing the existing data on quality-of-life in patients with advanced heart failure, discussing and reaching a consensus on the validity and significance of quality-of-life assessment methods. Gaps in routine care and research, which should be addressed, were identified. Finally, published data on the effects of current i.v. vasoactive therapies such as inotropes, inodilators, and vasodilators on quality-of-life in advanced heart failure patients were analysed.

How to discuss goals of care with patients

Effective communication with patients and their caregivers continues to form the basis of a constructive clinician-patient relationship and is critical to provide patient-centered care. Engaging patients in meaningful, empathic communication not only fulfills an ethical imperative for our work as clinicians but also leads to increased patient satisfaction with their own care and improved clinical outcomes. While these same imperatives and benefits exist for discussing goals of care and end-of-life, communicating with patients about these topics can be particularly daunting. While clinicians receive extensive training on how to identify and treat illness, communication techniques, especially those centering around emotion-laden topics such as end-of-life care, receive short shrift medical education. Fortunately, communication techniques can be taught and learned through deliberate practice, and in this article, we seek to discuss a framework, drawn from published literature and our own experience, for approaching goals-of-care discussions in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Patients' perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at the end of life

BACKGROUND

Individualised care at the end of life requires professional understanding of the patient's perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the evidence on patients' perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life.

DESIGN

Systematic narrative review of empirical studies was published during 2008-2014.

DATA SOURCES

Data were collected from six databases, citations from relevant articles and expert recommendations.

RESULTS

In all, 18 studies included with collective population of n = 5810. Concept mapping highlighted three themes: (1) Diverse preferences regarding discussion and deactivation. Deactivation was rarely discussed pre-implantation, with some studies demonstrating patients' reluctance to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at any stage. Two studies found the majority of patients valued such discussions. Diversity was reflected in patients' willingness to deactivate, ranging from 12% (n = 9) in Irish cohort to 79% (n = 195) in Dutch study. (2) Ethical and legal considerations were predominant in Canadian and American literature as patients wanted to contribute but felt the decision should be a doctor's responsibility. Advance directives were uncommon in Europe, and where they existed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not mentioned. (3) 'Living in the now' was evident as despite deteriorating symptoms many patients maintained a positive outlook and anticipated surviving more than 10 years. Several studies asserted living longer was more important than quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Patients regard the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a complex and solely beneficial device, with little insight regarding its potential impact on a peaceful death. This review confirms the need for professionals to discuss with patients and families implantable cardioverter defibrillator functionality and deactivation at appropriate opportunities.

Defibrillator Deactivation against a Patient's Wishes: Perspectives of Electrophysiology Practitioners

BACKGROUND

Unilateral do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders (against patient/family wishes) have been ethically justified in cases of medical futility. We investigated whether electrophysiology practitioners believe medical futility justifies unilateral implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Email invitations to take an online survey were sent to 1,894 electrophysiology practitioners. A total of 384 responses were collected (response rate 20.6%). Though the sample included respondents from Europe, Asia, Australia, South America, and Africa, the majority were from North America (78%), were academically affiliated (64%), and practiced in an urban setting (67.8%). Deactivation of ICD shock function in agreement with patient wishes and a preexisting DNR were not considered physician-assisted suicide (93.2%, 358/384). However, a majority of the sample responded that it was not ethical/moral for doctors to deactivate ICDs against patients' wishes (77.1%, 296/384) or against family/surrogates' wishes (72.4%, 278/384), even in the context of medical futility. A majority indicated that deactivating ICD shock function is not ethically/morally different than withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation or external defibrillation in a code (72.7%, 277/381), but was different than deactivating pacing in a pacemaker-dependent patient (82.8%, 318/384). In the classification of interventions, a plurality (43.0%, 165/383) regarded ICDs to be unlike any other intervention. Concerning pacemakers, 50% (191/382) considered them to be like dialysis (a therapy that keeps patients alive).

CONCLUSIONS

This international sample of electrophysiology practitioners considered ICD and pacemaker deactivation to be ethically distinct. While ICD deactivation was considered appropriate in the setting of patient/family agreement, unilateral deactivation was not.

Dilemmas in end-stage heart failure

Heart failure (HF), a complex clinical syndrome due to structural or functional disorder of the heart, is a major global health issue, with a prevalence of over 5.8 million in the USA alone, and over 23 million worldwide. As a leading cause of hospitalizations among patients aged 65 years or older, HF is a major consumer of healthcare resources, creating a substantial strain on the healthcare system. This paper discusses the epidemiology of HF, financial impact, and multifaceted predicaments in end-stage HF care. A search was conducted on the U.S. National Library of Medicine website (www.pubmed.gov) using keywords such as end-stage heart failure, palliative care, ethical dilemmas. Despite the poor prognosis of HF (worse than that for many cancers), many HF patients, caregivers, and clinicians are unaware of the poor prognosis. In addition, the unpredictable clinical trajectory of HF complicates the planning of end-of-life care, such as palliative care and hospice, leading to underutilization of such resources. In conclusion, ethical dilemmas in end-stage HF are numerous, embroiling not only the patient, but also the caregiver, healthcare team, and society.

Ethical challenges of deactivation of cardiac devices in advanced heart failure

More than 23 million adults worldwide have heart failure (HF). Although survival after heart failure diagnosis has improved over time, mortality from heart failure remains high. At the end of life, the chronic HF patient often becomes increasingly symptomatic, and may have other life-limiting comorbidities as well. Multiple trials have shown a clear mortality benefit with the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmia. However, patients who have an ICD may be denied the chance of a sudden cardiac death, and instead are committed to a slower terminal decline, with frequent DC shocks that can be painful and decrease the quality of life, greatly contributing to their distress and that of their families during this period. While patients with ICDs are routinely counseled with regard to the benefits of ICDs, they have a poor understanding of the options for device deactivation and related ethical and legal implications. Deactivating an ICD or not performing a generator change is both legal and ethical, and is supported by guidelines from both sides of the Atlantic. Patient autonomy is paramount, and no patient is committed to any therapy that they no longer wish to receive. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were initially used as bridge in patients awaiting heart transplantation, but they are currently implanted as destination therapy (DT) in patients with end-stage heart failure who have failed to respond to optimal medical therapy and who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. The decision-making process for initiation and deactivation of LVAD is becoming more and more ethically and clinically challenging, particularly for elderly patients.

Defibrillator patients should not be denied a peaceful death

BACKGROUND

Implantable defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death. With declining health, ICD therapy may prolong death and expose the patient to unnecessary pain and anxiety. Few studies have addressed end of life care in ICD patients. The objective of this study was to investigate end of life in ICD patients, with respect to location of death; duration between do-not-resuscitate (DNR)-orders and deactivation of ICD therapy or DNR and time of death.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A descriptive analysis of 65 deceased ICD patients, all whom had a written DNR-order before death, is presented. The majority (86%) was treated in hospitals, mainly (63%) university hospitals, and many (33%) in cardiology wards. Despite DNR-order, ICD shock therapy was active in 51% of all patients. In those with therapy deactivated at death, therapy deactivation was carried out two days or more after DNR-order in more than a third (38%). The time from DNR decision to death in patients with therapy active had a median of four days (IQR 1-38). During the last 24h of life, 24% of the patients experienced shock treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of ICD patients with a DNR-order were treated in university hospitals. More than half still had shock treatment active at time of death with a median of four days or more between DNR decision and death. Patients with therapy deactivated, two days or more elapsed in more than a third from DNR decision to deactivation of therapy, exposing patients to a high risk of painful shocks before death.

Normativity under change: Older persons with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

In modern society, death has become 'forbidden' fed by the medical technology to conquer death. The technological paradigm is challenged by a social-liberal political ideology in postmodern Western societies. The question raised in this study was as follows: Which arguments, attitudes, values and paradoxes between modern and postmodern tendencies concerning treatment and care of older persons with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator appear in the literature?

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe and interpret how the field of tension concerning older persons with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator - especially end-of-life issues - has been expressed in the literature throughout the last decade.

METHODS

Paul Ricoeur's reflexive interpretive approach was used to extract the meaningful content of the literature involving qualitative, quantitative and normative literature. Analysis and interpretation involved naive reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The investigation complied with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

The unifying theme was 'Normativity under change'. The sub-themes were 'Death has become legitimate', 'The technological imperative is challenged' and 'Patients and healthcare professionals need to talk about end-of-life issues'. There seems to be a considerable distance between the normative approach of how practice ought to be and findings in empirical studies.

CONCLUSION

Modern as well as postmodern attitudes and perceptions illustrate contradictory tendencies regarding deactivation of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator and replacement of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in older persons nearing the end of life. The tendencies challenge each other in a struggle to gain position. On the other hand, they can also complement each other because professionalism and health professional expertise cannot stand alone when the patient's life is at stake but must be unfolded in an alliance with the patient who needs to be understood and accepted in his vulnerability.

A study to improve communication between clinicians and patients with advanced heart failure: methods and challenges behind the working to improve discussions about defibrillator management trial

We report the challenges of the Working to Improve Discussions About Defibrillator Management trial, our novel, multicenter trial aimed at improving communication between cardiology clinicians and their patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who have implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The study objectives are (1) to increase ICD deactivation conversations, (2) to increase the number of ICDs deactivated, and (3) to improve psychological outcomes in bereaved caregivers. The unit of randomization is the hospital, the intervention is aimed at HF clinicians, and the patient and caregiver are the units of analysis. Three hospitals were randomized to usual care and three to intervention. The intervention consists of an interactive educational session, clinician reminders, and individualized feedback. We enroll patients with advanced HF and their caregivers, and then we regularly survey them to evaluate whether the intervention has improved communication between them and their HF providers. We encountered three implementation barriers. First, there were institutional review board concerns at two sites because of the palliative nature of the study. Second, we had difficulty in creating entry criteria that accurately identified an HF population at high risk of dying. Third, we had to adapt our entry criteria to the changing landscape of ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplant eligibility. Here we present our novel solutions to the difficulties we encountered. Our work has the ability to enhance conduct of future studies focusing on improving care for patients with advanced illness.

End-of-life care in patients with heart failure

Stage D heart failure (HF) is associated with poor prognosis, yet little consensus exists on the care of patients with HF approaching the end of life. Treatment options for end-stage HF range from continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy to device interventions and cardiac transplantation. However, patients approaching the end of life may elect to forego therapies or procedures perceived as burdensome, or to deactivate devices that were implanted earlier in the disease course. Although discussing end-of-life issues such as advance directives, palliative care, or hospice can be difficult, such conversations are critical to understanding patient and family expectations and to developing mutually agreed-on goals of care. Because patients with HF are at risk for rapid clinical deterioration or sudden cardiac death, end-of-life issues should be discussed early in the course of management. As patients progress to advanced HF, the need for such discussions increases, especially among patients who have declined, failed, or been deemed to be ineligible for advanced HF therapies. Communication to define goals of care for the individual patient and then to design therapy concordant with these goals is fundamental to patient-centered care. The objectives of this white paper are to highlight key end-of-life considerations in patients with HF, to provide direction for clinicians on strategies for addressing end-of-life issues and providing optimal patient care, and to draw attention to the need for more research focusing on end-of-life care for the HF population.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation: a hospice quality improvement initiative

BACKGROUND

Dying patients whose implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) continue to deliver shocks may experience significant pain, and the National Quality Forum has endorsed routine deactivation of ICDs when patients near the end of life. The overarching goal of this quality improvement project was to increase rates of ICD deactivation among hospice patients.

MEASURES

ICD deactivation rates pre- vs. post-intervention; and clinicians' knowledge and confidence regarding ICD management.

INTERVENTION

A multifaceted intervention included clinical tools, education, and standardized documentation templates in the electronic medical record.

OUTCOMES

The proportion of patients whose ICD was deactivated increased after the intervention (pre- vs. post-intervention: 39/68, 57% vs. 47/56, 84%; odds ratio 3.88; 95% confidence interval 1.54-10.37; P = 0.001). Clinicians' knowledge and confidence regarding ICD management improved (pre- vs. post-intervention median questionnaire scores: 5 vs. 9 on a scale of 0 to 10; Wilcoxon signed-rank test Z = -5.01; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED

A multifaceted intervention can increase rates of ICD deactivation among patients near the end of life.

Adjunctive therapy and management of the transition of care in patients with heart failure

Heart failure is a costly and difficult disease to treat. However, new metrics make it an imperative to keep these patients out of the hospital. Implementing and maintaining patients on successful treatment plans is difficult. A multitude of factors make transitioning care to the outpatient setting difficult. A careful and well-orchestrated team of cardiologists, general practitioners, nurses, and ancillary support staff can make an important difference to patient care. A strong body of literature supports the use of pharmacologic therapy, and evidence-based therapies can improve mortality and quality of life, and reduce hospital admissions. Adjunctive therapies can be equally important.

Engaging heart failure clinicians to increase palliative care referrals: overcoming barriers, improving techniques

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is the most common cause of hospitalization among adults over the age of 65. Hospital readmission rates, mortality rates, and Medicare costs for patients with this disease are high. Furthermore, patients with HF experience a number of symptoms that worsen as the disease progresses. However, a small minority of patients with HF receives hospice or palliative care. One possible reason for this may be that the HF and palliative care clinicians have differing perspectives on the role of palliative care for these patients.

AIM

The goal of the article is to offer palliative care clinicians a roadmap for collaborating with HF clinicians by reviewing the needs of patients with HF.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reviews the needs of patients with HF and their families, the barriers to referral to palliative care for patients with HF, and provides suggestions for improving collaboration between palliative care and HF clinicians.

Preparedness planning before mechanical circulatory support: a "how-to" guide for palliative medicine clinicians

The role of palliative medicine in the care of patients with advanced heart failure, including those who receive mechanical circulatory support, has grown dramatically in the last decade. Previous literature has suggested that palliative medicine providers are well poised to assist cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and the multidisciplinary cardiovascular team with promotion of informed consent and initial and iterative discussions regarding goals of care. Although preparedness planning has been described previously, the actual methods that can be used to complete a preparedness plan have not been well defined. Herein, we outline several key aspects of this approach and detail strategies for engaging patients who are receiving mechanical circulatory support in preparedness planning.

ICD recipients' understanding of ethical issues, ICD function, and practical consequences of withdrawing the ICD in the end-of-life

BACKGROUND

The current international expert consensus statements recommend that clinicians should discuss elective implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation before implantation of the device, and then consistently during the illness trajectory. However, no previous studies have investigated predictors of ICD patients' knowledge about end-of-life issues or whether knowledge influences patients' attitudes about deactivation.

METHODS

This nationwide survey study (n = 3,067) had a cross-sectional correlational design of self-reported data. Participants were recruited from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry and asked to complete a questionnaire about knowledge in relation to the ICD and end-of-life.

RESULTS

Only 79 respondents (3%) scored correctly on all 11 questions. The mean sample score was 6.6 ± 2.7 out of a maximum score of 11. A total of 835 participants (29%) had an insufficient knowledge when using the 25th percentile as a cutoff. Younger ICD recipients, those cohabiting, male participants, and those who had received shocks, had a generator replacement, or who had discussed illness trajectory with their physician were more likely to have sufficient knowledge on the end-of-life issues. Insufficient knowledge was associated with indecisiveness to make decisions about ICD deactivation in the end-of-life situations, and with favorable attitudes about replacing the ICD even if seriously ill or have reached an advanced age, and keeping the shock therapy of the ICD even in a terminal phase of life when dying from cancer or other serious chronic illnesses.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient knowledge is common among ICD recipients and is associated with attitudes and decisions that may result in a stressful and potentially painful end-of-life situation.

Features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiac device deactivation

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about patients who undergo cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective review of medical records of 150 patients at a tertiary academic medical center (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). EXPOSURE Cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Demographic and clinical data and information regarding advance directives, ethics consultations, palliative medicine consultations, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivations.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients (median age, 79 years; 67% were male), 149 (99%) had poor or terminal prognoses. Overall, 118 patients (79%) underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only, and 32 (21%) underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (6 patients [4%] were pacemaker-dependent). Half of the deactivation requests (51%) were made by surrogates. A majority of deactivations (55%) were carried out by nurses. Although 85 patients (57%) had advance directives, only 1 mentioned the device in the directive. Ethics consultations occurred in 3 patients (2%) and palliative medicine consultations in 64 (43%). The proportions of patients who died within 1 month of device deactivation were similar for those who underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only and those who underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (85% vs 94%; P = .37).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most requests for cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation were for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-delivered tachycardia therapies only. Many of these requests were made by surrogates. Advance directives executed by patients with these devices rarely addressed device management. Regardless of device therapy, most patients died shortly after device deactivation. Hence, a device deactivation decision may reflect the seriousness of a given patient's underlying illness. Patients with devices should engage in advance care planning to ensure that future care is consistent with their preferences.

Spouses' reflections on implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment with focus on the future and the end-of-life: a qualitative content analysis

AIM

To explore future reflections of spouses living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipient with focus on the end-of-life phase in an anticipated palliative phase.

BACKGROUND

A history of or risk for life-threatening arrhythmias may require an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Despite the life-saving capacity of the device, eventually life will come to an end. As discussion about preferences of shock therapy at end-of-life phase seldom takes place in advance, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients may face defibrillating shocks in the final weeks of their lives, adding to stress and anxiety in patients and their families.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with in-depth interviews analysed with a content analysis.

METHODS

Interviews were performed with 18 spouses of medically stable implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients during 2011-2012.

RESULTS

The spouses described how they dealt with changes in life and an uncertain future following the implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Six subcategories conceptualized the spouses' concerns: Aspiring for involvement; Managing an altered relationship; Being attentive to warning signs; Worries for deterioration in the partner's health; Waiting for the defibrillating shock; and Death is veiled in silence.

CONCLUSION

Despite the partner's serious state of health; terminal illness or death and the role of the device was seldom discussed with healthcare professionals or the implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipient. Open and honest communication was requested as important to support coping with an unpredictable life situation and to reduce worries and uncertainty about the future and end-of-life.