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

The Complex Ethical and Moral Experience of Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation

The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a fully implantable cardiac replacement device that can complicate the process of dying. We present a case of a patient who attempted to deactivate the LVAD without the support of his medical team. This action was understood as a "suicide attempt" though when the patient was later felt to be dying, LVAD deactivation proceeded without reference to psychiatric illness. To understand this case, we discuss the ethics of LVAD deactivation in the dying process. We then explore the experience of clinicians and the public encountering this unique technology across clinical contexts. We herein present a novel and possibly controversial analysis of the moral complexities of LVAD deactivation and suggest that clinicians be transparent about these complexities with patients and families.

Clinical Ethics and Professional Integrity: A Comment on the ASBH Code

The Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants instructs clinical ethics consultants to preserve their professional integrity by "not engaging in activities that involve giving an ethical justification or stamp of approval to practices they believe are inconsistent with agreed-upon standards" (ASBH, 2014, p. 2). This instruction reflects a larger model of how to address value uncertainty and moral conflict in healthcare, and it brings up some intriguing and as yet unanswered questions-ones that the drafters of the Code, and the profession more broadly, should seek to address in upcoming revisions. The objective of this article is to raise these questions as a way of urging greater clarification of the Code's overall approach to professional integrity, its meaning, and implications.

End-Stage/Advanced Heart Failure: Geriatric Palliative Care Considerations

Heart failure remains a condition with high morbidity and mortality affecting 23 million people globally with a cost burden equivalent to 5.4% of the total health care budget in the United States. These costs include repeated hospitalizations as the disease advances and care that may not align with individual wishes and values. The coincidence of comorbid conditions with advanced heart failure poses significant challenges in the geriatric population. Advance care planning, medication education, and minimizing polypharmacy are primary palliative opportunities leading to specialist palliative care such as symptom management at end of life and timing of referral to hospice.

[Can we remove a pacemaker in the name of unreasonable obstinacy? The story of Odette]

« Les humanités en santé : histoire de cas » sont coor- données par Claire Crignon, professeure d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences à l’université de Lorraine, qui a créé le master « humanités biomédicales » à Sorbonne université.

Characteristics of Clinicians Are Associated With Their Beliefs About ICD Deactivation: Insight From the DECIDE-HF Study

Background

Discussing goals of care with heart failure patients is recommended but is not done systematically, due to factors such as time and personal beliefs. A recent survey showed that one-fifth of clinicians believe that implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation (ICDD) is unethical or constitutes physician-assisted suicide. We investigated whether individuals’ characteristics are associated with these beliefs.

Methods

The Decision-Making About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure (DECIDE-HF) survey was given to healthcare providers at 9 hospitals to assess their perceived barriers to goals-of-care discussions. The association between respondent characteristics and their beliefs was examined using 2 adjusted logistic regression models.

Results

We included 760 clinicians (459 nurses, 94 fellows, and 207 cardiologists). The responses varied among professions, with the belief that ICDD is unethical considered to be important barrier by nurses (24%), fellows (10%), and staff (7%); P < 0.001). After adjusting for site, spirituality being more important in life (odds ratio [OR]: 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.37-3.56; P = 0.001, compared to less important), region of training (Asia [OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.12-16.31; P = 0.001] and Middle East [OR: 5.55; 95% CI:1.57-19.63; P = 0.008] compared to Canada), and years in practice (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.07-1.63; P = 0.01 per decade) influenced beliefs about ICDD being unethical, with similar results for the belief that ICDD represents physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusions

Sociocultural factors, region of training, and profession influence clinicians’ beliefs about ICDD being unethical and representing physician-assisted suicide. These factors and beliefs must be acknowledged when facing the delicate issue of end-of-life discussion.

Scarce-Resource Allocation and Patient Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The COVID-19 pandemic and its sequelae have created scenarios of scarce medical resources, leading to the prospect that health care systems have faced or will face difficult decisions about triage, allocation, and reallocation. These decisions should be guided by ethical principles and values, should not be made before crisis standards have been declared by authorities, and, in most cases, will not be made by bedside clinicians. Do not attempt resuscitation and withholding and withdrawing decisions should be made according to standard determination of medical appropriateness and futility, but there are unique considerations during a pandemic. Transparent and clear communication is crucial, coupled with dedication to provide the best possible care to patients, including palliative care. As medical knowledge about COVID-19 grows, more will be known about prognostic factors that can guide these difficult decisions.

•

Difficult decisions about triage and allocation have arisen in the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

In a crisis, autonomy may become subordinate to maximize the number of lives saved.

•

Fairness involves equal access to scarce resources, ignoring factors unrelated to prognosis and maximizing benefit.

•

Transparent communication and palliative care are central to providing the best possible care to patients.

Planning for Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators at the End of Life in Patients With Heart Failure

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) may be burdensome in end-stage heart failure. At the end of life, as many as one-fifth to one-third of patients experience an ICD shock. Critical care nurses should be aware of the potential burden of these shocks at the end of life as well as the ethics and organizational policies surrounding ICD deactivation. This literature review examines the issues surrounding ICD therapy at the end of life. Based on this author's findings, recommendations for discussing and implementing ICD deactivation are offered. Health care organizations should have clear policies addressing ICD deactivation to provide for seamless integration of palliative care services throughout the course of heart failure. These policies should empower nurses to activate resources in a timely manner and should clearly outline processes for ICD deactivation.

Practical and ethical considerations in the management of pacemaker and implantable cardiac defibrillator devices in terminally ill patients

More than 4.5 million people worldwide live with an implanted pacemaker, including >3 million in the USA alone. Also, >0.8 million people in the USA have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Knowing the principles of managing these devices towards the end of life is important, as the interruption of their function may have serious consequences. This article provides health care providers who are not specialized in cardiac electrophysiology with an introduction to the general principles of management of pacemakers or ICD devices towards the end of life, with a suggested algorithm for approaching this process. Also discussed are pertinent ethical and practical considerations in deciding on and implementing a management strategy for these devices during terminal illnesses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The prevalence and contents of advance directives in patients with pacemakers

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the use of advance directives (ADs) in patients who have implantable cardiac pacemakers (PMs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who underwent implantation of a cardiac PM at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during 2006 and 2007, and determined the prevalence and contents of ADs in these patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 205 residents of Olmsted County (men, 53%) underwent PM implantation (mean age [standard deviation] at implantation, 77 [15] years). Overall, 120 patients (59%) had ADs. Of these, 63 ADs (53%) were executed more than 12 months before and 33 (28%) were executed after PM implantation. Many patients specifically mentioned life-prolonging treatments in their ADs: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 76 (63%); mechanical ventilation, 56 (47%); and hemodialysis, 31 (26%). Pain control was mentioned in 79 ADs (66%) and comfort measures were mentioned in 42 ADs (35%). Furthermore, the AD of many patients contained a general statement about end-of-life care (e.g., no "heroic measures"). However, only one AD (1%) specifically addressed the end-of-life management of the PM.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the patients with PMs in our study had executed an AD, but only one patient specifically mentioned her PM in her AD. These results suggest that patients with PMs should be encouraged to execute ADs and specifically address end-of-life device management in their ADs. Doing so may prevent end-of-life ethical dilemmas related to PM management.

An Ethical Analysis of Withdrawal of Therapy in Patients with Implantable Cardiac Electronic Devices: Application of a Novel Decision Algorithm

Patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), which include pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), may request deactivation of their devices as they approach the end of life. The Heart Rhythm Society (2010) has stated that "ethically, and legally, there are no differences between refusing CIED therapy and requesting withdrawal of CIED therapy." On the basis of the principle that there is no ethical distinction between withholding and withdrawing treatment, this professional organization has suggested that both the antibradycardia and antitachycardia features of these devices may be disabled at the patient's request. We argue that disabling ICD shocks is analogs to a do-not-resuscitate order and is ethically permissible whereas withdrawing pacing from a pacemaker-dependent patient is an act of intentionally hastening death and not morally licit.