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

Ethical issues and palliative care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit

Medical advances over the past 50 years have helped countless patients with advanced cardiac disease or who are critically ill in the intensive care unit (ICU), but have added to the ethical complexity of the care provided by clinicians, particularly at the end of life. Palliative care has the primary aim of improving symptom burden, quality of life, and the congruence of the medical plan with a patient's goals of care. This article explores ethical issues encountered in the cardiac ICU, discusses key analyses of these issues, and addresses how palliative care might assist medical teams in approaching these challenges.

Ethical challenges in advanced heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advanced heart failure (AHF) is an increasingly important field. Both the population of AHF patients and the therapeutic and diagnostic interventions available are expanding, creating a host of difficult ethical challenges. This article discusses these important issues and proposes an approach to caring for AHF patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent guidelines and clinical trials describe the benefits of costly and invasive therapies for AHF, such as ventricular assist devices and cardiac resynchronization therapy which prolong life and improve symptoms but may create burdens and conflict over deactivation at the end of life. Prognostication, informed consent, and early involvement of palliative care are central to addressing the decision-making challenges raised by these devices. Societal concerns such as cost-effectiveness and distributive justice will play an increasingly important role in the dissemination of these devices.

SUMMARY

More research, increased end-of-life education, emphasis on advance directives, a more comprehensive informed consent process, and a true multidisciplinary approach are needed to provide optimal care for patients with AHF.

Clinicians' attitudes regarding withdrawal of left ventricular assist devices in patients approaching the end of life

AIMS

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are implanted to support the circulation of patients with advanced heart failure. Patients approaching death, or their surrogates, may request withdrawal of LVAD support. We sought to study the attitudes and practices of heart failure clinicians regarding withdrawal of LVAD support in patients approaching death.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using internet-based and secure methods, we surveyed members of the European Society of Cardiology-Heart Failure Association (ESC-HFA), the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) to assess their attitudes and practices regarding LVAD withdrawal for patients approaching death. The results indicated that clinicians have varied attitudes and practices regarding withdrawing LVAD support in these patients. Furthermore, ESC-HFA clinicians (primarily European) and ISHLT and HFSA clinicians (primarily North American) differed in their attitudes and practices regarding withdrawal of LVAD support, particularly its ethical and legal permissibility. For example, more European clinicians than North American clinicians regarded withdrawing LVAD support as a form of euthanasia.

CONCLUSION

Opinions and level of comfort with LVAD withdrawal vary among clinicians. Clinicians should be aware of suggested approaches or guidelines for managing requests for withdrawal of LVAD therapy.

End-of-life care in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a MADIT-II substudy

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-delivered shocks can cause substantial distress, warranting consideration of ICD deactivation at end of life. This study was designed to describe the patterns of end-of-life management in patients with ICDs.

METHODS

There was a retrospective chart review of 98 patients who died in the ICD arm of multicenter automated defibrillator implantation trial II (MADIT II). The pattern of ICD management and the frequency of ICD shocks delivered before death were reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified three groups: Group 1 consisting of individuals who underwent ICD, deactivation, 15 (15%); Group 2 patients without ICD deactivation who were in hospice or with "do not resuscitate" (DNR) orders, 36 (37%); and Group 3 patients without ICD deactivation who were not in hospice care and did not have DNR orders, 47 (48%). Out of 15 deactivations, 11 (73%) occurred in the week before death. None of the patients in Group 1 received an ICD shock in the 24-hour period before death. However, one (3%) patient from Group 2 and nine (19%) patients from Group 3 had shocks during the 24 hours before death (P = 0.03). In the last week before death, three (20%), two (6%), and six (13%) patients received ICD shocks in the three groups, respectively (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with terminal conditions who are at risk for imminent death, active management of the patient's ICD, including timely discussions regarding ICD deactivation, may reduce the risk of ICD shocks during the end of life.

Patients' perspective on deactivation of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator near the end of life

Recent guidelines have emphasized the importance of discussing the issue of deactivation near the end of life with patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Few studies have examined the patient perspective and patients' wishes. We examined patients' knowledge and wishes for information; and the prevalence and correlates of a favorable attitude toward deactivation. Three cohorts of ICD patients (n = 440) extracted from our institutional database were asked to complete a survey that included a vignette about deactivation near the end of life. Of the 440 patients approached, 294 (67%) completed the survey. Most patients (68%) were aware that it is possible to turn the ICD off, and 95% believed it is important to inform patients about the possibility. Of the patients completing the survey, 84% indicated a choice for or against deactivation. Psychological morbidity was not associated with a response in favor or against deactivation (p >0.05 for all). The wish for a worthy death near the end of life was an independent associate of a favorable attitude toward deactivation (odds ratio 2.14, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 3.06, p <0.0001), adjusting for the importance of avoiding shock-related pain, anxiety, and poor quality of life and other potential confounders. In conclusion, most ICD patients seemed to favor device deactivation at the end of life, primarily owing to the wish for a worthy death. This finding indicates that patients have thought about the issue of deactivation near the end of life and might welcome the chance to discuss it with their physician.

[The chronic critically ill patient from the cardiologist's perspective]

In recent years the prognosis and survival of chronic and acute heart failure (HF) patients has been steadily improving; however, many patients develop advanced chronic HF which is characterized by worsening of symptoms, unplanned hospital admission due to acute decompensation, development of complications, such as life-threatening arrhythmia and shorter life span. Optimal medical therapy is supplemented by interventional cardiology, cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), minimally invasive valve replacement or repair, circulatory mechanical support and heart transplantation. Medical indications and informed consent are essential prerequisites for successfully implementing treatment goals. For patients who are incapable of decisions a legally defined surrogate decision-maker has the same right to refuse or request the withdrawal of treatment as the patient would have if the patient had decision-making capability. As the use of circulatory mechanical support becomes increasingly more prevalent, ethical issues are likely to arise at an increasing rate, as will social and legal ramifications. The concept of turning off an implanted device as death nears is challenging because of ethical and technical concerns. The same holds true for CIEDs. A palliative care approach is applicable to heart failure patients and is particularly relevant to those with advanced disease. Palliative care should be integrated as part of a team approach to comprehensive HF care and should not be reserved for those who are expected to die within days or weeks.

Resynchronization: considering device-based cardiac therapy in older adults

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a device-based treatment available to select individuals with systolic heart failure (HF), a large proportion of whom are aged 65 and older. As the field of CRT advances, together with shifting demographics and expanded indications for implantation, there is a need for practitioners caring for older adults to understand what is and is not known about the use of CRT specifically in this population. Clinical trials demonstrating benefits for severe and mild HF have uncertain generalizability to older adults. Other studies demonstrate that device-related complications may be more common with CRT than with simpler devices and more common in older adults. CRT clinical trials also may not adequately capture outcomes and concerns specific to older adults, including quality of life and end-of-life care experiences. Informed decision-making by clinicians, policy-makers, and patients will require greater understanding of the use and outcomes of CRT in older persons.

Life-saving devices reach the end of life with heart failure

The new millennium has seen a dramatic increase in use of potentially life-prolonging devices such as implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and ventricular assist devices (VADs) among patients with advanced heart failure. Most patients who receive these devices will have them in place when they die. Clinicians who care for these patients must commit through the entire course of therapy, including the end-of-life. Discussions about device deactivation should be the standard of care and this discussion should take place prior to implantation, during annual heart failure reviews, after major milestones, and when the end-of-life appears to be approaching. Turning off ICDs and turning off VADs in response to patient or proxy requests are legally the same although they may be perceived differently, as disconnection of the VAD is more likely to cause immediate death. This article discusses the evidence around device deactivation at the end-of-life and offers suggestions for improvement.

Patients' experiences of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD); with a focus on battery replacement and end-of-life issues

BACKGROUND

ICD deactivation at end-of-life is technically uncomplicated. However, it may present a psychological challenge to healthcare professionals, patients, and next-of-kin.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored patients' experiences of complex issues of battery replacement and deactivation of the ICD.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were administered to 37 medically stable ICD-recipients.

RESULTS

The ICD-recipients lived with an uncertain illness trajectory, but the majority had not reflected on battery replacement or elective ICD deactivation. Healthcare professionals had rarely discussed these issues with patients. However, this was consistent with the ICD-recipients' wishes. Many patients had misconceptions about the lifesaving capacity of the ICD and the majority stated that they would not choose to deactivate the ICD, even if they knew they were terminally ill, and it meant they would receive multiple shocks.

CONCLUSION

The ICD-recipients tended not to think about end-of-life issues, which imply that many patients reach the final stages of life unaware of the option of ICD deactivation.

Pacemaker deactivation: withdrawal of support or active ending of life?

In spite of ethical analyses assimilating the palliative deactivation of pacemakers to commonly accepted withdrawings of life-sustaining therapy, many clinicians remain ethically uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation at the end of life. Various reasons have been posited for this discomfort. Some cardiologists have suggested that reluctance to deactivate pacemakers may stem from a sense that the pacemaker has become part of the patient's "self." The authors suggest that Daniel Sulmasy is correct to contend that any such identification of the pacemaker is misguided. The authors argue that clinicians uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation are nevertheless correct to see it as incompatible with the traditional medical ethics of withdrawal of support. Traditional medical ethics is presently taken by many to sanction pacemaker deactivation when such deactivation honors the patient's right to refuse treatment. The authors suggest that the right to refuse treatment applies to treatments involving ongoing physician agency. This right cannot underwrite patient demands that physicians reverse the effects of treatments previously administered, in which ongoing physician agency is no longer implicated. The permanently indwelling pacemaker is best seen as such a treatment. As such, its deactivation in the pacemaker-dependent patient is best seen not as withdrawal of support but as active ending of life. That being the case, clinicians adhering to the usual ethical analysis of withdrawal of support are correct to be uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation at the end of life.

Deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), are the most effective treatment for life-threatening arrhythmias. Patients or their surrogates may request device deactivation to avoid prolongation of the dying process or in other settings, such as after device-related complications or with changes in health care goals. Despite published guidelines outlining theoretical and practical aspects of this common clinical scenario, significant uncertainty remains for both patients and health care providers regarding the ethical and legal status of CIED deactivation. This review outlines the ethical and legal principles supporting CIED deactivation, centered upon patient autonomy and authority over their own medical treatment. The empirical literature describing stakeholder views and experiences surrounding CIED deactivation is described, along with implications of these studies for future research surrounding the care of patients with CIEDs.

The Ethics of Deactivating a Pacemaker in a Pacing-Dependent Patient

The decision to deactivate a pacemaker in a pacing-dependent patient is troubling for some health professionals who may regard such interventions as hastening death and therefore ethically impermissible. This may be especially concerning in situations where a patient is unable to clearly state what their preferences may be and the decision—were it to be made—will almost certainly result in the patient’s immediate death. In this discussion, we reflect on some of the ethical aspects that arise when JP, a 75-year-old woman who is pacing dependent, suffers a significant brain injury, and the family request that her pacemaker be deactivated. Taking into account the clinical reality of her situation, the united wishes and loving concern of her husband and family, and their substituted judgment regarding her likely preferences, we claim that the decision to deactivate her pacemaker was ethically sound.

Preferences of people with advanced heart failure-a structured narrative literature review to inform decision making in the palliative care setting

BACKGROUND AND APPROACH: There is a growing emphasis on the need for high-quality and patient-centered palliative care for patients with heart failure (HF) near end of life. Accordingly, clinicians require adequate knowledge of patient values and preferences, but this topic has been underreported in the HF literature. In response, we conducted a structured narrative review of available evidence regarding patient preferences for HF care near end of life, focusing on circumstances of death, advance care planning, and preferences for specific HF therapies.

RESULTS

Patients had widely varying preferences for sudden ("unaware") death versus a death that was anticipated ("aware"), which would allow time to make arrangements and time with family; preferences influenced their choice of HF therapies. Patients and physicians rarely discussed advance care planning; physicians were rarely aware of resuscitation preferences. Advance care planning discussions rarely included preferences for limiting implantable cardioverter defibrillator use, and patients were often uninformed of the option of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. A substantial minority of patients strongly preferred improved quality of life versus extended survival, but preferences of individuals could not be easily predicted.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding preferences of patients with HF near end of life suggests substantial opportunities for improvement of end-of-life HF care. Most notably, the wide distribution of patient preferences highlights the need to tailor approach to patient wishes, avoiding assumptions of patient wishes. A research agenda and implications for health care provider training are proposed.

The dilemma of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in the geriatric population

Current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in heart failure patients were established by multiple device trials; however, very few geriatric patients (patients ≥ 65 years old) were included in these studies. This article explores the controversies of ICD implantation in the geriatric population, management of delivered ICD therapy in this age group, and the end of life care in patients with ICD.

The deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: medical, ethical, practical, and legal considerations

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) cannot prevent death from progressive heart failure or non-cardiac disease. Patients with ICDs may receive defibrillation therapy from their devices in the last days of their lives, when such therapy does not accord with the goal of palliative treatment, but rather lowers these patients' quality of life and compromises their dignity.

METHODS

We present a case report and a selective review of pertinent literature retrieved by a PubMed search, including two up-to-date consensus documents.

RESULTS

One-third to two-thirds of all ICD patients receive defibrillation therapy in the final days of their lives. Patients and their physicians rarely discuss deactivating the ICD. The ethical aspects of such decisions need to be considered. As a practical matter, it is possible to deactivate certain types of electrotherapy selectively, while leaving others active. There are logistical considerations as well.

CONCLUSION

Automatic defibrillation therapy in a terminally ill patient with an ICD is painful and distressing, serves no medical purpose, and should be avoided. This issue should be discussed with ICD patients and their families. Institutions caring for terminally ill patients, as well as cardiology units where ICD patients are treated, should develop ethically and legally well-founded protocols for dealing with the question of ICD deactivation.

Integrating palliative care in the intensive care unit

The admission of cancer patients into intensive care units (ICUs) is on the rise. These patients are at high risk for physical and psychosocial suffering. Patients and their families often face difficult end-of-life decisions that highlight the importance of effective and empathetic communication. Palliative care teams are uniquely equipped to help care for cancer patients who are admitted to ICUs. When utilized in the ICU, palliative care has the potential to improve a patient's symptoms, enhance the communication between care teams and families, and improve family-centered decision making. Within the context of this article, we will discuss how palliative care can be integrated into the care of ICU patients and how to enhance family-centered communication; we will also highlight the care of ICU patients at the end of life.

ICD Deactivation

Implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an essential part of the management for patients at risk for life threatening arrhythmias. Despite new technologies, all patients ultimately will reach the end of their lives, either because of underlying cardiac disease or another terminal illness. Having an ICD at the end of life may deny a patient the chance of sudden cardiac death and result in a slower terminal disease and pain and anxiety due to shocks from their device. The purpose of this article is to present a focused literature review on the barriers surrounding deactivation of ICDs and to summarize the recommendations of the Heart Rhythm Society Consensus Statement on the management of ICDs in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy.

[Treating ICD patients at the end of their lives: attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of doctors and patients. A critical literature analysis]

BACKGROUND

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in the therapy of malign heart rhythm abnormalities. However, the ethical dilemma of harming a dying patient has received little attention. We studied the current state of knowledge and behavior of physicians and the subjective needs of ICD patients with respect to end-of-life issues.

METHODS

A literature search of articles published between 8/2010 and 3/2011 in PubMed resulted in the identification of 32 reports, of which 25 met selection criteria.

RESULTS

Practically no clinical institution (96% in Europe) offers routine counseling of ICD patients on end-of-life issues. In only about 25% of cases do doctors initiate a discussion on this issue with the ICD patient, of which the majority takes place during the final hours of the patient's life. Knowledge of legal aspects of ICD deactivation is insufficient in about 50% of physicians. Many physicians underestimate the impact of ICD shocks and often have unrealistic expectations about the patient's knowledge on technical aspects of the ICD device. The majority of patients are reluctant to address this topic and prefer to rely on the decision of their attending physician.

CONCLUSION

Despite insufficient empirical data, findings point to a low willingness of ICD patients to confront the end-of-life issue and prefer decisions to be made by their physician. Substantial knowledge gaps of physicians may cause barriers in considering the option of deactivating the ICD.

The use of advance directives among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the prevalence of advance directives (ADs) among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and of ADs that addressed ICD management at the end of life.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients who underwent ICD implantation during 2007 at a single institution were reviewed retrospectively to determine the number of patients with an AD and the number of ADs mentioning the ICD specifically (i.e. ICD management at end of life).

RESULTS

During 2007, 420 patients (males, 71%) underwent ICD implantation at our institution (mean age [range] at implantation, 63 [1-90] years). Primary prevention was the most common indication for device therapy (254 patients [61%]). Overall, 127 patients (30%) had an AD, with 83 ADs (65%) completed more than 12 months before ICD implantation and 10 (8%) completed after it. Several life-sustaining treatments were mentioned in the ADs: tube feeding, 46 (37%); cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 25 (20%); mechanical ventilation, 22 (17%); and hemodialysis, nine (7%). Pain control was mentioned in 58 ADs (46%) and comfort measures in 38 (30%). However, only two ADs (2%) mentioned the ICD or its deactivation at end of life.

CONCLUSIONS

About one-third of patients with ICDs had an AD, but only a couple ADs mentioned the ICD. These results suggest that clinicians should not only encourage patients with ICDs to complete an AD, but also encourage them to address ICD management specifically. Not addressing ICD management in an AD may result in ethical dilemmas during end-of-life care.

Ethical challenges with deactivation of durable mechanical circulatory support at the end of life: left ventricular assist devices and total artificial hearts

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and total artificial hearts (TAHs) are surgically implanted as permanent treatment of unrecoverable heart failure. Both LVADs and TAHs are durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that can prolong patient survival but also alter end-of-life trajectory. The permissibility of discontinuing assisted circulation is controversial because device deactivation is a life-ending intervention. Durable MCS is intended to successfully replace native physiological functions in heart disease. We posit that the presence of new lethal pathophysiology (ie, a self-perpetuating cascade of abnormal physiological processes causing death) is a central element in evaluating the permissibility of deactivating an LVAD or a TAH. Consensual discontinuation of durable MCS is equivalent with allowing natural death when there is an onset of new lethal pathophysiology that is unrelated to the physiological functions replaced by an LVAD or a TAH. Examples of such lethal conditions include irreversible coma, circulatory shock, overwhelming infections, multiple organ failure, refractory hypoxia, or catastrophic device failure. In all other situations, deactivating the LVAD/TAH is itself the lethal pathophysiology and the proximate cause of death. We postulate that the onset of new lethal pathophysiology is the determinant factor in judging the permissibility of the life-ending discontinuation of a durable MCS.

Do implantable cardioverter defibrillators complicate end-of-life care for those with heart failure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We know deactivating implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is permissible and should not complicate end-of-life care. However, patients and healthcare professionals still struggle with this concept. This review looks at the recent literature to find possible reasons behind this.

RECENT FINDINGS

ICD use is on the increase and is not always in accordance with best practice guidelines. The number of clinicians having conversations about deactivation is variable, but most of them agree that it is ethical and legal. Difficulty in initiating conversations is mainly due to lack of training, viewing ICDs as being different to conventional treatments and lack of clarity about legality. Patients' knowledge around deactivation and its ethical and legal standing is low. This can be improved by giving information about end-of-life options at the time of implantation and incorporating these within care plans. Use of ICDs should be reviewed in context of disease status and patients' goals.

SUMMARY

Deactivation of ICDs at end of life throws up challenges for clinicians and patients. This review points toward a need for communication training for clinicians and early initiation of discussion around the time of ICD insertion, as well improving clinicians' and patients' knowledge of the ethics and legality of deactivation.

ICDs and patients in palliative care: the clinical experience turned into clinical policy

As the global population grows and ages, an increasing number of patients are being referred to specialist palliative care services with multiple comorbidities. A parallel increase in interventional cardiology technology, techniques, and availability means that an increasing minority of these patients are having an implantable cardioverter defibrillator device (ICD) in place. It is essential that issues relating to these devices are discussed early in patients' planning for end-of-life care, as the discharging of a device in a patient who has chosen not to be resuscitated will be contrary to their wishes. These issues are explored here by presenting two case studies with vastly different outcomes that were experienced at a hospice in Australia. Examination of these case studies by the hospice staff culminated in the development of a policy for the home-based palliative care team and the hospice inpatient unit for deactivation of ICDs according to patients' and caregivers' wishes at a variety of stages of their palliative care journey. Elements of this policy are also presented here as guidance for others looking to implement similar processes.

Deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in terminal illness and end of life care

Cardiology professional societies have recommended that patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices complete advance directives (ADs). However, physicians rarely discuss end of life handling of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and standard AD forms do not address the presence of ICDs. We conducted a telephone survey of 278 patients with an ICD from a large, academic hospital. The average period since implantation was 5.15 years. More than 1/3 (38%) had been shocked, with a mean of 4.69 shocks. More than 1/2 had executed an AD, but only 3 had included a plan for their ICD. Most subjects (86%) had never considered what to do with their ICD if they had a serious illness and were unlikely to survive. When asked about ICD deactivation in an end of life situation, 42% said it would depend, 28% favored deactivation, and 11% would not deactivate. One quarter (26%) thought ICD deactivation was a form of assisted suicide, 22% thought a do not resuscitate order did not mean that the ICD should be deactivated, and 46% responded that the ICD should not be automatically deactivated in hospice. The answers did not correlate with any demographic factors. Almost all (95%) agreed that patients should have the opportunity to execute an AD that directs handing of an ICD. When asked who should be responsible for discussing this device for an AD, 31% said electrophysiologists, 45% said general cardiologists, and 14% said primary care physicians. In conclusion, the results of the present study highlight the lack of consensus among patients with an ICD on the issue of deactivation at the end of a patient's life. These findings suggest cardiologists should discuss end of life care and device deactivation with their patients with an ICD.