Ethics Guidelines for Destination Therapy

Discontinuation of Cardiac Devices at or Near an Adult Patient's End of Life

Advances in medical technology have begun to blur the lines between life and death as well as the lines between appropriate and inappropriate therapy. This review addresses the charged issue of the management of cardiac devices at or near the end of a patient's life, provides a summary of prior and current opinion with some historical context, and attempts to provide some modest guidance as to how to approach the various options to the patient's best advantage. Modalities to be addressed include indwelling electronic devices, the left ventricular assistance device, and extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, and includes available outcome data as well as ethical analysis from a number of commentators. The expected further increase in technical sophistication of these devices is expected to render the various aspects of device deactivation more and more complex over the course of the next few years such that careful attention to and knowledge about this issue will continue to be more and more necessary.

Deactivation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices at the End of Life: Narrative Review and Ethical Framework

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become an increasingly common advanced therapy in patients with severe symptomatic heart failure. Their unique nature in prolonging life through incorporation into the circulatory system raises ethical questions regarding patient identity and values, device ontology, and treatment categorization; approaching requests for LVAD deactivation requires consideration of these factors, among others. To that end, clinicians would benefit from a deeper understanding of: 1) the history and nature of LVADs; 2) the wider context of device deactivation and associated ethical considerations; and 3) an introductory framework incorporating best practices in requests for LVAD deactivation (specifically in controversial situations without obvious medical or device-related complications). In such decisions, heart failure teams can safeguard patient preferences without compromising ethical practice through more explicit advance care planning before LVAD implantation, early integration of hospice and palliative medicine specialists (maintained throughout the disease process), and further research interrogating behaviors and attitudes related to LVAD deactivation.

Associations of depressive symptoms with outcomes in patients implanted with left ventricular assist devices

OBJECTIVE

We examined characteristics of depressive symptoms in patients who received left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) to assess their effects on negative outcomes post-implantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 203 adults with pre-operative PHQ-9 scores who underwent LVAD placement as bridge to transplant (BTT) or destination therapy (DT). We analyzed effects of PHQ-9 total, somatic, and cognitive/affective scores and proportion of patients with clinical depression on all-cause mortality, rehospitalization, major bleeding, and neurologic events post-implantation, controlling for demographics and other medical comorbidities.

RESULTS

Mean total PHQ-9 scores did not differ between 81 BTT and 122 DT patients (BTT 6.4 vs. DT 7.5, p = 0.12). A higher proportion of DT patients had clinical depression (BTT 22% vs. DT 39%, p = 0.015). Somatic symptoms accounted for three-quarters of total scores in both groups. PHQ-9 domains were not associated with negative outcomes post-implantation.

CONCLUSION

Depression severity did not differ based on implant strategy, but more DT patients had clinical depression. Somatic symptoms were the biggest contributor to depressive symptoms. Pre-implantation PHQ-9 scores were not associated with outcomes, possibly because depression was mild in both groups. Additional work is needed in LVAD patients to better characterize depressive symptoms and their unique effects on clinical course and well-being.

Delivery of End-of-Life Care in Patients Requesting Withdrawal of a Left Ventricular Assist Device Using Intranasal Opioids and Benzodiazepines

With the increasing prevalence of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in patients with end-stage cardiomyopathies, an increasing number of these patients are dying of noncardiac conditions. It is likely that the palliative care clinician will have an ever-increasing role in managing end of life for patients with LVADs, including discontinuation of LVAD support. There exists a paucity of literature describing strategies for effective delivery of palliative care in patients requesting discontinuation of LVAD therapy. Here, we present a case of a patient with metastatic cancer who requested LVAD discontinuation. Because of practical concerns and patient preference, the patient did not have intravenous (IV) access and medications requiring IV administration could not be used. Therefore, a strategy using intranasal midazolam and sufentanil was applied, the LVAD was deactivated, and the patient died comfortably. This case is, to our knowledge, the first to describe a strategy for delivery of palliative care in patients requesting discontinuation of LVAD support, particularly in the absence of IV access. Such a strategy may be applicable to patients wishing to die at home, and therefore allow greater latitude for patients and clinicians in their approach to the end of life.

Matters to address prior to introducing new life support technology in Japan: three serious ethical concerns related to the use of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy and suggested policies to deal with them

BACKGROUND

Destination therapy (DT) is the permanent implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in patients with end-stage, severe heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation. DT improves both the quality of life and prognosis of patients with end-stage heart failure. However, there are also downsides to DT such as life-threatening complications and the potential for the patient to live beyond their desired length of life following such major complications. Because of deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs regarding death and the sanctity of life, Japanese society may not be ready to make changes needed to enable patients to have LVADs deactivated under certain circumstances to avoid needless suffering.

MAIN TEXT

Western ethical views that permit LVAD deactivation based mainly on respect for autonomy and dignity have not been accepted thus far in Japan and are unlikely to be accepted, given the current Japanese culture and traditional values. Some healthcare professionals might regard patients as ineligible for DT unless they have prepared advance directives. If this were to happen, the right to prepare an advance directive would instead become an obligation to do so. Furthermore, patient selection for DT poses another ethical issue. Given the predominant sanctity of life principle and lack of cost-consciousness regarding medical expenses, medically appropriate exclusion criteria would be ignored and DT could be applied to various patients, including very old patients, the demented, or even patients in persistent vegetative states, through on-site judgment.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for Japan to establish and enact a basic act for patient rights. The act should include: respect for a patient's right to self-determination; the right to refuse unwanted treatment; the right to prepare legally binding advance directives; the right to decline to prepare such directives; and access to nationally insured healthcare. It should enable those concerned with patient care involving DT to seek ethical advice from ethics committees. Furthermore, it should state that healthcare professionals involved in the discontinuation of life support in a proper manner are immune to any legal action and that they have the right to conscientiously object to LVAD deactivation.

Rise of the Machines: In an Era of Ventricular Assist Devices, Prolonging Life or Death?

The past few decades witnessed the unprecedented "rise of the machines"; life-prolonging devices to support failing organs or as a form of organ replacement. Sophisticated machines provide us clinical milieu to intervene on sicker, dying patients, support the failing organ, prevent downward trajectory to multi-organ failure, and avert death. Hemodialysis has been in existence for several decades and has become the standard therapy for acute renal failure. Extracorporeal liver assist device replaces the detoxification function of the failing liver. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenator in cases of profound respiratory failure can replace the native lung function in the oxygenation of the venous blood and removal of carbon dioxide. The technology can also be used as a short-term heart-lung machine to keep the patient alive in the event of profound refractory cardiopulmonary collapse until the native heart and lung function returns. Ventricular assist devices (VADs) can completely replace the cardiac function in patients with end-stage heart failure and provide systemic flow. These innovative machines were developed under the assumption that they will improve survival, functional capacity, and quality of life in this cohort of patients. This case study focuses on the appropriate use of VADs as an alternative therapy for end-stage heart failure. This will explicate the ethical dilemma that concomitantly may arise with the use of these sophisticated organ replacement strategies when the goals of their placement are not met and just merely prolonging the dying process.

Usefulness of Palliative Care to Complement the Management of Patients on Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Within the last decade, advancements in left ventricular assist device therapy have allowed patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) to live longer and with better quality of life. Like other life-saving interventions, however, there remains the risk of complications including infections, bleeding episodes, and stroke. The candidate for left ventricular assist device therapy faces complex challenges going forward, both physical and psychological, many of which may benefit from the application of palliative care principles by trained specialists. Despite these advantages, palliative care remains underused in many advanced HF programs. Here, we describe the benefits of palliative care, barriers to use within HF, and specific applications to the integrated care of patients on mechanical circulatory support.

Palliative Care for the Geriatric Anesthesiologist

Many seriously ill geriatric patients are at higher risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality, and incorporating proactive palliative care principles may be appropriate. Advanced care planning is a hallmark of palliative care in that it facilitates alignment of the goals of care between the patient and the health care team. When these goals conflict, perioperative dilemmas can occur. Anesthesiologists must overcome many cultural and religious barriers when managing the care of these patients. Palliative care is gaining ground in several perioperative populations where integration with certain patient groups has occurred. Geriatric anesthesiologists must be aware of how palliative care and hospice influence and enhance the care of elderly patients.

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.

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.

Ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of ventricular assist devices in supporting patients with end-stage organ dysfunction

Successful practice of cardiovascular medicine requires familiarity with the complex ethical issues that accompany therapeutic innovation and diffusion. Even as technologies transition from experimental to standard care, challenges remain. Mechanical circulatory support devices, for instance, are increasingly conceptualized as conventional therapies. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the ethical issues surrounding the use of these devices in patients with end-stage organ dysfunction are becoming increasingly apparent. In this paper, we provide an introduction to ethical considerations related to the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) in end-stage organ failure, focusing on three stages or decision points: initiation, continued use, and deactivation. Our goal is not to exhaustively resolve these dilemmas but to illustrate how ethical considerations relate to decision making.

Improving end-of-life care for ventricular assist devices (VAD) patients: paradox or protocol?*

When a person consents to have a ventricular assist device (VAD) implanted in one's heart, the intention is to extend life toward a new heart or toward more time. Complications may develop followed by frequent hospital admissions-most often in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting-rendering a transplant a distant reality and to discontinue the device means certain death. Emotional support for patient and family is critical. Regardless of the original goal for the device, palliative care provides assistance in communication, goal setting, and symptom management and yet its consultation is often more for brink-of-death care than end-of-life care provided at the time of diagnosis of a life-threatening disease such as heart failure. This study examined the recent deaths of hospitalized patients with VADs and the use of the palliative care service. Understanding the benefit and timing of palliative care for VAD patients-particularly in the ICU setting--may improve the end-of-life experience for patients, families, and healthcare providers.

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.

The pharmacotherapy implications of ventricular assist device in the patient with end-stage heart failure

Advances in mechanical circulatory support, such as the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), have become a means for prolonging survival in end-stage heart failure (HF). VADs decrease the symptoms of HF and improve quality of life by replacing some of the work of a failing heart. They unload the ventricle to provide improved cardiac output and end-organ perfusion, resulting in improvement in cardiorenal syndromes and New York Heart Association functional class rating. VADs are currently used asa bridge to heart transplantation, a bridge to recovery of cardiac function, or as destination therapy. Complications of VAD include bleeding, infections, arrhythmias, multiple organ failure, right ventricular failure, and neurological dysfunction. Patients with VAD have unique pharmacotherapeutic requirements in terms of anticoagulation, appropriate antibiotic selection, and continuation of HF medications. Pharmacists in acute care and community settings are well prepared to care for the patient with VAD. These patients require thorough counseling and follow-up with regard to prevention and treatment of infections, appropriate levels of anticoagulation, and maintenance of fluid balance. A basic understanding of this unique therapy can assist pharmacists in attending to the needs of patients with VAD.

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.

Palliative medicine consultation for preparedness planning in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefit of proactive palliative medicine consultation for delineation of goals of care and quality-of-life preferences before implantation of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy (DT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of patients who received DT between January 15, 2009, and January 1, 2010.

RESULTS

Of 19 patients identified, 13 (68%) received proactive palliative medicine consultation. Median time of palliative medicine consultation was 1 day before DT implantation (range, 5 days before to 16 days after). Thirteen patients (68%) completed advance directives. The DT implantation team and families reported that preimplantation discussions and goals of care planning made postoperative care more clear and that adverse events were handled more effectively. Currently, palliative medicine involvement in patients receiving DT is viewed as routine by cardiac care specialists.

CONCLUSION

Proactive palliative medicine consultation for patients being considered for or being treated with DT improves advance care planning and thus contributes to better overall care of these patients. Our experience highlights focused advance care planning, thorough exploration of goals of care, and expert symptom management and end-of-life care when appropriate.

End-of-life decision making and implementation in recipients of a destination left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) is increasing and has proven beneficial in prolonging survival and improving quality of life in select patients with end-stage heart failure. Nonetheless, end-of-life (EOL) issues are inevitable and how to approach them underreported.

METHODS

Our DT data registry was queried for eligible patients, defined as those individuals who actively participated in EOL decision making. The process from early EOL discussion to palliation and death was reviewed. We recorded the causes leading to EOL discussion, time from EOL decision to withdrawal and from withdrawal to death, and location. Primary caregivers were surveyed to qualify their experience and identify themes relevant to this process.

RESULTS

Between 1999 and 2009, 92 DT LVADs were implanted in 69 patients. Twenty patients qualified for inclusion (mean length of support: 833 days). A decrease in quality of life from new/worsening comorbidities usually prompted EOL discussion. Eleven patients died at home, 8 in the hospital and 1 in a nursing home. Time from EOL decision to LVAD withdrawal ranged from <1 day to 2 weeks and from withdrawal until death was <20 minutes in all cases. Palliative care was provided to all patients. Ongoing assistance from the healthcare team facilitated closure and ensured comfort at EOL.

CONCLUSIONS

With expanding indications and improved technology, more DT LVADs will be implanted and for longer durations, and more patients will face EOL issues. A multidisciplinary team approach with protocols involving DT patients and their families in EOL decision making allows for continuity of care and ensures dignity and comfort at EOL.

An approach to the patient with organ failure: transplantation and end-of-life treatment decisions

Organ transplantation offers an opportunity for extended survival and enhanced quality of life to patients with end-stage organ disease. Significant challenges are associated with both pre- and post-transplantation care, however, that require awareness of psychiatric issues in this patient population. Ventricular assist devices have added another dimension to patient care and to quality-of-life considerations. Unfortunately, effective incorporation of palliative care and end-of-life discussions is frequently overlooked during caretaking of these patients.

End-of-life discontinuation of destination therapy with cardiac and ventilatory support medical devices: physician-assisted death or allowing the patient to die?

BACKGROUND

Bioethics and law distinguish between the practices of "physician-assisted death" and "allowing the patient to die."

DISCUSSION

Advances in biotechnology have allowed medical devices to be used as destination therapy that are designed for the permanent support of cardiac function and/or respiration after irreversible loss of these spontaneous vital functions. For permanent support of cardiac function, single ventricle or biventricular mechanical assist devices and total artificial hearts are implanted in the body. Mechanical ventilators extrinsic to the body are used for permanent support of respiration. Clinical studies have shown that destination therapy with ventricular assist devices improves patient survival compared to medical management, but at the cost of a substantial alteration in end-of-life trajectories. The moral and legal assessment of the appropriateness and permissibility of complying with a patient's request to electively discontinue destination therapy in a life-terminating act in non-futile situations has generated controversy. Some argue that complying with this request is ethically justified because patients have the right to request withdrawal of unwanted treatment and be allowed to die of preexisting disease. Other commentators reject the argument that acceding to an elective request for death by discontinuing destination therapy is 'allowing a patient to die' because of serious flaws in interpreting the intention, causation, and moral responsibility of the ensuing death.

SUMMARY

Destination therapy with cardiac and/or ventilatory medical devices replaces native physiological functions and successfully treats a preexisting disease. We posit that discontinuing cardiac and/or ventilatory support at the request of a patient or surrogate can be viewed as allowing the patient to die if--and only if--concurrent lethal pathophysiological conditions are present that are unrelated to those functions already supported by medical devices in destination therapy. In all other cases, compliance with a patient's request constitutes physician-assisted death because of the pathophysiology induced by the turning off of these medical devices, as well as the intention, causation, and moral responsibility of the ensuing death. The distinction between allowing the patient to die and physician-assisted death is pivotal to the moral and legal status of elective requests for death by discontinuing destination cardiac and/or ventilatory medical devices in patients who are not imminently dying. This distinction also represents essential information that must be disclosed to patients and surrogates in advance of consent to this type of therapy.

Ethical challenges with the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy

The left ventricular assist device was originally designed to be surgically implanted as a bridge to transplantation for patients with chronic end-stage heart failure. On the basis of the REMATCH trial, the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved permanent implantation of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy in Medicare beneficiaries who are not candidates for heart transplantation. The use of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy raises certain ethical challenges. Left ventricular assist devices can prolong the survival of average recipients compared with optimal medical management of chronic end-stage heart failure. However, the overall quality of life can be adversely affected in some recipients because of serious infections, neurologic complications, and device malfunction. Left ventricular assist devices alter end-of-life trajectories. The caregivers of recipients may experience significant burden (e.g., poor physical health, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder) from destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices. There are also social and financial ramifications for recipients and their families. We advocate early utilization of a palliative care approach and outline prerequisite conditions so that consenting for the use of a left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy is a well informed process. These conditions include: (1) direct participation of a multidisciplinary care team, including palliative care specialists, (2) a concise plan of care for anticipated device-related complications, (3) careful surveillance and counseling for caregiver burden, (4) advance-care planning for anticipated end-of-life trajectories and timing of device deactivation, and (5) a plan to address the long-term financial burden on patients, families, and caregivers.Short-term mechanical circulatory devices (e.g. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, etc.) can be initiated in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of ventricular assist devices in chronic end-stage heart failure. In the absence of first-person (patient) consent, presumed consent or surrogate consent should be used cautiously for the initiation of short-term mechanical circulatory devices in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of left ventricular assist devices. Future clinical studies of destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices should include measures of recipients' quality of end-of-life care and caregivers' burden.

Withdrawal of cardiac medications and devices

Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies such as cardiac medications, pacemakers, internal cardioverter defibrillators, and ventricular assist devices occurs in patients with advanced cardiac disease as goals of treatment transition from active to less aggressive. This article defines life-sustaining therapies and describes ethical and legal considerations related to withdrawal of cardiac medications and cardiac devices. Healthcare providers need to anticipate clinical situations in which implantable cardiac devices and medications are no longer desired by patients and/or are no longer medically appropriate. Discussions are important between patients, families, and healthcare providers that focus on each patient's condition, prognosis, advance directives, goals of care, and treatment options. Critical care nurses support each patient and his or her family and work with other members of the healthcare team to achieve a peaceful death.