Decision-making regarding primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among older adults

Defibrillator exchange in the elderly

Background

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in elderly patients is controversial because survival benefits might be attenuated by nonarrhythmic causes of death.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of septuagenarians and octogenarians after ICD generator exchange (GE).

Methods

A total of 506 patients undergoing elective GE were analyzed to determine the incidence of ICD shocks and/or survival after GE. Patients were divided into a septuagenarian group (age 70-79 years) and an octogenarian group (age ≥80 years). The primary endpoint was death from any cause. Secondary endpoints were survival after appropriate ICD shock and death without experiencing ICD shocks after GE ("prior death").

Results

The association of the ICD with all-cause mortality and arrhythmic death was determined for septuagenarians and octogenarians. Comparing both groups, similar left ventricular ejection fraction (35.6% ± 11.2% vs 32.4% ± 8.9%) and baseline prevalence of New York Heart Association functional class III or IV heart failure (17.1% vs 14.7%) were found. During the entire follow-up period of the study, 42.5% of patients in the septuagenarian group died compared to 79% in the octogenarian group (P <.01). Prior death was significantly more frequent in both age groups than were appropriate ICD shocks. Predictors of mortality were common in both groups and included advanced heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and renal failure.

Conclusion

In clinical practice, decision-making for ICD GE among the elderly should be considered carefully for individual patients.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Asia

In a contemporary setting, where the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is low, heart failure management is improved, and technology is advanced, identifying the patients who would benefit the most from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment for primary prevention remains a challenge. The prevalence of SCD is lower in Asia when compared with the United States/Europe (35-45 per 100,000 person-years vs 55-100 per 100,000 person-years, respectively). Nevertheless, this should not explain the enormous gap in ICD's utilization among eligible candidates (∼12% in Asia vs ∼45% in the United States/Europe). The disparity between Asia and Western countries, together with significant variation among the Asian population and the previously mentioned challenges, requires an individualized approach and specific regional recommendation, especially in countries with limited resources where ICDs are being extremely underutilized This review focuses on the current knowledge of ICD therapy for SCD prevention and how to improve patient and device selection.

Prevalence of One-Year Mortality after Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Placement: An Opportunity for Palliative Care?

Background: Current guidelines recommend against placement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with a life expectancy less than one year. These patients may benefit from early palliative care services; however, identifying this population is challenging. Objective: Determine whether a validated prognostic tool, based on patient factors and health care utilization from electronic medical records, accurately predicts one-year mortality at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement. Design: We used the United States (U.S.) Veterans Administration's "Care Assessment Needs" one-Year Mortality Score to identify patients at high risk of mortality (score ≥95) before their procedure. Data were extracted from the Corporate Data Warehouse. Logistic regression was used to assess the odds of mortality at different score levels. Setting/Subjects: Patients undergoing a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedure between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017 in the U.S. Veterans Administration. Results: Of 3194 patients with a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator placed, 657 (21.8%) had a score ≥95. The mortality rate among these patients was 151/657 (22.9%) compared with 281/3194 (8.8%) for all patients undergoing a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedure. Patients with a score ≥95 had 14.0 (95% confidence interval 8.0-24.4) higher odds of death within one year of the procedure compared with those with a score ≤60. Conclusions: The "Care Assessment Needs" Score is a valid predictor of one-year mortality following implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedures. Integrating its use into the management of Veterans Administration (VA) patients considering implantable cardioverter defibrillators may improve shared decision making and engagement with palliative care.

Prospective evaluation of health status, quality of life and clinical outcomes following implantable defibrillator generator exchange

BACKGROUND

Little is known about health status and quality of life (QoL) after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) generator exchange (GE).

METHODS

We prospectively followed patients undergoing first-time ICD GE. Serial assessments of health status were performed by administering the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36).

RESULTS

Mean age was 67.5 ± 14.3 years, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was 36.5% ± 15.0% and over 40% of the cohort had improved LVEF to > 35% at the time of GE. SF-36 scores were significantly worse in physical/general health domains compared to domains of emotional/social well-being ( P < 0.001 for each comparison). Physical health scores were significantly worse among those with medical comorbidities including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation. Mean follow-up was 1.6 ± 0.5 years after GE. Overall SF-36 scores remained stable across all domains during follow-up. Survival at 3 years post-GE was estimated at 80%. Five patients died during follow-up and most deaths were adjudicated as non-arrhythmic in origin. Four patients experienced appropriate ICD shocks after GE, three of whom had LVEF which remains impaired LVEF (i.e., < 35%) at the time of GE.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing ICD GE have significantly worse physical health compared to emotional/social well-being, which is associated with the presence of medical comorbidities. In terms of clinical outcomes, the incidence of appropriate shocks after GE among those with improvement in LVEF is very low, and most deaths post-procedure appear to be non-arrhythmic in origin. These data represent an attempt to more fully characterize the spectrum of QoL and clinical outcomes after GE.

Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making and patient-centred communication have become part of pre-procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices.

DISCUSSION

Patients desire post-procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow-up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information.

CONCLUSION

After receiving an implanted device, post-procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long-term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long-term health care, post-market safety surveillance and research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.

Downgrade of cardiac defibrillator devices to pacemakers in elderly heart failure patients: clinical considerations and the importance of shared decision-making

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are implanted on a large scale in patients with heart failure (HF) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. There are different scenarios in which defibrillator therapy is no longer desired or indicated, and this is occurring increasingly in elderly patients. Usually device therapy is continued until the device has reached battery depletion. At that time, the decision needs to be made to either replace it or to downgrade to a pacing-only device. This decision is dependent on many factors, including the vitality of the patient and his/her preferences, but may also be influenced by changes in recommendations in guidelines. In the last few years, there has been an increased awareness that discussions around these decisions are important and useful. Advanced care planning and shared decision-making have become important and are increasingly recognised as such. In this short review we describe six elderly patients with HF, in whose cases we discussed these issues, and we aim to provide some scientific and ethical rationale for clinical decision-making in this context. Current guidelines advocate the discussion of end-of-life options at the time of device implantation, and physicians should realise that their choices influence patients’ options in this critical phase of their illness.

Decision-making regarding primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among older adults

Most implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted for the purpose of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Shared decision‐making prior to device implantation is guideline‐recommended and payer‐mandated. This article summarizes patient and provider attitudes toward device placement, device efficacy and effectiveness, potential periprocedural complications, long‐term events such as shocks, quality of life, costs, and shared decision‐making principles and recommendations. Most patients eligible for an ICD anticipate more than 10 years of survival. Physicians are less likely to offer an ICD to patients ≥80 years of age given a perceived lack of benefit. There is a dearth of data from randomized clinical trials addressing device efficacy among older patients; there is a need for more research in this area. However, currently available data support the use of ICDs irrespective of age provided life expectancy exceeds 1 year. Advanced age is independently associated with complications at the time of device placement but not the risk of device infection. The risk of inappropriate shock may be comparable or lower than that of younger patients. While quality of life is generally not adversely impacted by an ICD, a subset of patients experience post‐traumatic stress disorder. ICDs are cost‐effective from societal and health care sector perspectives; however, out‐of‐pocket costs vary according to insurance type and level. Shared decision‐making encounters may be incremental and iterative in nature. Providers are encouraged to partner with their patients, providing them counsel tailored to their values, preferences, and clinical presentation inclusive of age.