Ethical and legal views of physicians regarding deactivation of cardiac implantable electrical devices: a quantitative assessment

Cardiologists' perspective on termination of pacemaker therapy-an anonymous survey among cardiologists in Germany

BACKGROUND

The patient's right to refuse pacemaker therapy is mentioned in the relevant European consensus statement but additional information is only available on deactivation of implantable cardioverter deactivator and not on other cardiac implantable electronic devices such as pacemakers. Therefore, we were interested in opinions, concerns and attitudes of cardiologists, who are the primary contact persons for such requests, since the number of patients asking for withdrawal of pacemaker therapy is likely to increase leaving cardiologists and healthcare professionals with a difficult medical but also ethical problem.

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all German cardiology departments (N = 288).

RESULTS

48% of cardiology departments responded by sending back 247 completed questionnaires. Most participating cardiologists were experienced when considering the duration of their professional activity. Almost all of the respondents regularly perform check-ups of pacemakers. The majority of cardiologists answering our questionnaire were prepared to deactivate a pacemaker upon patients' request, and have done so. In pacemaker dependency, however, the willingness to withdraw decreases, even if death is imminent, for fear of causing distressing symptoms, sense of being responsible for patients possible immediate death, or fear of legal consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey could clearly show that uncertainties remain among cardiologists dealing with a patient's wish for withdrawal, especially in cases of pacemaker dependency. We suggest that official statements of cardiologic societies in Europe are issued to clarify ethical, legal and practical aspects of pacemaker withdrawal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00026168) on 30.08.2021.

"But I Have a Pacer…There Is No Point in Engaging in Hypothetical Scenarios": A Non-Imminently Dying Patient's Request for Pacemaker Deactivation

In this case report, we describe a woman with advancing dementia who still retained decisional capacity and was able to clearly articulate her request for deactivation of her implanted cardiac pacemaker-a scenario that would result in her death. In this case, the patient had the autonomy to make her decision, but clinicians at an outside hospital refused to deactivate her pacemaker even though they were in unanimous agreement that the patient had capacity to make this decision, citing personal discomfort and a belief that her decision seemed out of proportion to her suffering. We evaluated her at our hospital, found her to have decision-making capacity, and deactivated her pacer resulting in her death about 9 days later. While some clinicians may be comfortable discussing patient preferences for device deactivation in patients who are imminently dying, we can find no reports in the literature of requests for device deactivation from patients with terminal diagnoses who are not imminently dying.

Comprehensive care for people living with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—Integration of palliative care with disease-specific care: From guidelines to practice

Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are the leading global epidemiological, clinical, social, and economic burden. Due to similar risk factors and overlapping pathophysiological pathways, the coexistence of these two diseases is common. People with severe COPD and advanced chronic HF (CHF) develop similar symptoms that aggravate if evoking mechanisms overlap. The coexistence of COPD and CHF limits the quality of life (QoL) and worsens symptom burden and mortality, more than if only one of them is present. Both conditions progress despite optimal, guidelines directed treatment, frequently exacerbate, and have a similar or worse prognosis in comparison with many malignant diseases. Palliative care (PC) is effective in QoL improvement of people with CHF and COPD and may be a valuable addition to standard treatment. The current guidelines for the management of HF and COPD emphasize the importance of early integration of PC parallel to disease-modifying therapies in people with advanced forms of both conditions. The number of patients with HF and COPD requiring PC is high and will grow in future decades necessitating further attention to research and knowledge translation in this field of practice. Care pathways for people living with concomitant HF and COPD have not been published so far. It can be hypothesized that overlapping of symptoms and similarity in disease trajectories allow to draw a model of care which will address symptoms and problems caused by either condition.

Is Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation Ethically Acceptable? A Study on the Euthanasia Debate

In the last decades, new technologies have improved the survival of patients affected by chronic illnesses. Among them, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has represented a viable solution for patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Even though the LVAD prolongs life expectancy, patients' vulnerability generally increases during follow up and patients' request for the device withdrawal might occur. Such a request raises some ethical concerns in that it directly hastens the patient's death. Hence, in order to assess the ethical acceptability of LVAD withdrawal, we analyse and examine an ethical argument, widely adopted in the literature, that we call the "descriptive approach", which consists in giving a definition of life-sustaining treatment to evaluate the ethical acceptability of treatment withdrawal. Focusing attention on LVAD, we show criticisms of this perspective. Finally, we assess every patient's request of LVAD withdrawal through a prescriptive approach, which finds its roots in the criterion of proportionality.

'You can't start a car when there's no petrol left': a qualitative study of patient, family and clinician perspectives on implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the attitudes towards implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation and initiation of deactivation discussions among patients, relatives and clinicians.

DESIGN

A multiphase qualitative study consisting of in situ hospital ICD clinic observations, and semistructured interviews of clinicians, patients and relatives. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach.

SETTING

One tertiary and two district general hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

We completed 38 observations of hospital consultations prior to ICD implantation, and 80 interviews with patients, family members and clinicians between 2013 and 2015. Patients were recruited from preimplantation to postdeactivation. Clinicians included cardiologists, cardiac physiologists, heart failure nurses and palliative care professionals.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified from the data: the current status of deactivation discussions; patients' perceptions of deactivation; who should take responsibility for deactivation discussions and decisions; and timing of deactivation discussions. We found that although patients and doctors recognised the importance of advance care planning, including ICD deactivation at an early stage in the patient journey, this was often not reflected in practice. The most appropriate clinician to take the lead was thought to be dependent on the context, but could include any appropriately trained member of the healthcare team. It was suggested that deactivation should be raised preimplantation and regularly reviewed. Identification of trigger points postimplantation for deactivation discussions may help ensure that these are timely and inappropriate shocks are avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for early, ongoing and evolving discussion between ICD recipients and clinicians regarding the eventual need for ICD deactivation. The most appropriate clinician to instigate deactivation discussions is likely to vary between patients and models of care. Reminders at key trigger points, and routine discussion of deactivation at implantation and during advance care planning could prevent distressing experiences for both the patient and their family at the end of life.

Perceptions of Medical Providers on Morality and Decision-Making Capacity in Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment and Suicide

BACKGROUND

This study attempts to understand if medical providers beliefs about the moral permissibility of honoring patient-directed refusals of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are tied to their beliefs about the patient's decision-making capacity. The study aims to answer: 1) does concern about a patient's treatment decision-making capacity relate to beliefs about whether it is morally acceptable to honor a refusal of LST, 2) are there differences between provider types in assessments of decision-making capacity and the moral permissibility to refuse LST, and 3) do provider demographics impact beliefs about decision-making capacity and the moral permissibility to refuse LST. Methods: A mixed-methods survey using Likert assessment and vignette-based questions was administered to medical providers within a single health system in the upper Midwest (N = 714) to assess their perspectives on the moral acceptance and decision-making capacity in cases of withholding and withdrawing treatment and suicide. Results: Behavioral health providers report accepting of the moral permissibility of suicide (91.2%) more than either medical providers (77.2%) or surgeons (74.4%) (n = 283). Decision-making capacity was questioned more in the vignettes of the patients refusing life-saving surgery (36%) and voluntarily starvation (40.8%) than in the vignette of the patient requesting to deactivate a pacemaker (13%) (n = 283). Behavioral health providers were more concerned about the capacity to refuse life-saving surgery (55.9%) than medical providers (33.8%) or surgeons (23.1%) (n = 283). Conclusions: Respondents endorse the moral permissibility of persons to withhold or withdraw from treatment regardless of motive. Clinical concerns about a patient's treatment decision-making capacity do not strongly correlate to views about the moral permissibility of honoring refusals of LST. Different provider types appear to have different thresholds for when to question treatment decision-making capacity. Behavioral health providers tend to question treatment decision-making capacity to refuse LST more than non-behavioral health providers.

Palliative cardiovascular care: The right patient at the right time

In the increasingly complex world of modern medicine, relationship-centered, team-based care is important in geriatric cardiology. Palliative cardiovascular care plays a central role in defining the scope and timing of medical therapies and in coordinating symptom-targeted care in line with patient wishes, values, and preferences. Palliative care addresses advance care planning, symptom relief and caregiver/family support and seeks to ameliorate all forms of suffering, including physical, psychological, and spiritual. Although palliative care grew out of the hospice movement and has traditionally been associated with care at the end of life, the current model acknowledges that palliative care can be delivered concurrent with invasive, life-prolonging interventions. As the population ages, patients with serious cardiovascular disease increasingly suffer from noncardiac, multimorbid conditions and become eligible for interventions that palliate symptoms but also prolong life. Management of implanted cardiac support devices at the end of life, whether rhythm management devices or mechanical circulatory support devices, can involve a host of complexities in decisions to deactivate, timing of deactivation and even the mechanics of deactivation. Studies on palliative care interventions have demonstrated clear improvements in quality of life and are more mixed on life prolongation and cost savings. There is and will remain a dearth of clinicians with specialist palliative care training. Therefore, cardiovascular clinicians have a role to play in provision of practical, "primary" palliative care.

Patient and Professional Factors That Impact the Perceived Likelihood and Confidence of Healthcare Professionals to Discuss Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Deactivation in Advanced Heart Failure: Results From an International Factorial Survey

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Background:

Rate of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantations is increasing in patients with advanced heart failure. Despite clear guideline recommendations, discussions addressing deactivation occur infrequently.

Aim:

The aim of this article is to explore patient and professional factors that impact perceived likelihood and confidence of healthcare professionals to discuss ICD deactivation.

Methods and Results:

Between 2015 and 2016, an international sample of 262 healthcare professionals (65% nursing, 24% medical) completed an online factorial survey, encompassing a demographic questionnaire and clinical vignettes. Each vignette had 9 randomly manipulated and embedded patient-related factors, considered as independent variables, providing 1572 unique vignettes for analysis. These factors were determined through synthesis of a systematic literature review, a retrospective case note review, and a qualitative exploratory study. Results showed that most healthcare professionals agreed that deactivation discussions should be initiated by a cardiologist (95%, n = 255) or a specialist nurse (81%, n = 215). In terms of experience, 84% of cardiologists (n = 53) but only 30% of nurses (n = 50) had previously been involved in a deactivation decision. Healthcare professionals valued patient involvement in deactivation decisions; however, only 50% (n = 130) actively involved family members. Five of 9 clinical factors were associated with an increased likelihood to discuss deactivation including advanced age, severe heart failure, presence of malignancy, receipt of multiple ICD shocks, and more than 3 hospital admissions during the previous year. Furthermore, nationality and discipline significantly influenced likelihood and confidence in decision making.

Conclusions:

Guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals discuss ICD deactivation; however, practice is suboptimal with multifactorial factors impacting on decision making. The role and responsibility of nurses in discussing deactivation require clarity and improvement.

Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator aids in the prevention of cardiac arrest by delivering an electrical shock in the presence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are essential to sustain life in patients with end-stage heart failure, it is important to consider the option for prompt deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators to prevent inappropriate electrical shocks at the end of life where death is inevitable. In this systematic review, available literature was reviewed, using six electronic databases, to identify problems that may delay the deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and address possible considerations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator management to improve end-of-life care. Studies reported low occurrence of deactivation discussions, lack of knowledge regarding implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation among most patients, and provider's perception of being unqualified to initiate discussion and perform deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. A need for additional patient and provider education and periodic discussions between patient and provider on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation should occur, as well as development of protocol or policy to guide care at the end of life.

Arrhythmias in Patients ≥80 Years of Age: Pathophysiology, Management, and Outcomes

Advances in medical care have led to an increase in the number of octogenarians and even older patients, forming an important and unique patient subgroup. It is clear that advancing age is an independent risk factor for the development of most arrhythmias, causing substantial morbidity and mortality. Patients ≥80 years of age have significant structural and electrical remodeling of cardiac tissue; accrue competing comorbidities; react differently to drug therapy; and may experience falls, frailty, and cognitive impairment, presenting significant therapeutic challenges. Unfortunately, very old patients are under-represented in clinical trials, leading to critical gaps in evidence to guide effective and safe treatment of arrhythmias. In this state-of-the-art review, we examine the pathophysiology of aging and arrhythmias and then present the available evidence on age-specific management of the most common arrhythmias, including drugs, catheter ablation, and cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Deactivation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients nearing end of life : Reality or only recommendation?

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend considering deactivation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing death. We evaluated the implementation of this recommendation in unselected deceased individuals with CIEDs.

METHODS

Over a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for CIEDs and these were interrogated in situ. Pacing rate, pacing mode, and lead output were documented as well as patient data including location and time of death. In implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), tachycardia therapy adjustment and occurrence of shocks 24 h prior to death were also recorded.

RESULTS

We examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs. Of these subjects, 125 (100%) pacemakers (PMs) and 27 (96.4%) ICDs were eligible for analysis. Death in persons with ICDs occurred most frequently in hospital (55.6%), while this was less frequently the case for individuals with PMs (43.2%). Furthermore, 33.3% of subjects with ICDs and 18.5% with PMs died in palliative care units (PCU). Shock therapies were switched off in three (60%) individuals with ICDs who died in the PCU, whereas antibradycardia therapy was not withdrawn in any PM patient in the PCU. Therapy withdrawal occurred in two patients with PMs (1.3%) who died in hospital. Patients with PMs had high ventricular pacing rates at the last interrogation (69 ± 36.0%) and often suffered atrioventricular block (39.2%). Six (25%) of the 24 active ICDs presented shocks near the time of death.

CONCLUSION

Many CIED patients died in hospital; nonetheless, in practice, CIED deactivation near death is rarely performed and might be less feasible in subjects with PMs. However, there is still a need to consider deactivation, especially in individuals with ICDs, as one fourth of them received at least one shock within 24 h prior to death.

[Device therapy in cardiological palliative care situations]

There is considerable uncertainty about the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) threatened by immediate or medium-term death due to heart failure or other disease, for patients and their relatives as well as for physicians and medical staff. Patients can be afraid that they cannot die as long as pacing persists; medical staff may forget to deactivate shock therapies in an agonal phase or may not know how to do this without a programmer. For optimal handling of CIEDs in a palliative care situation, patients have to be informed that pacemakers or cardiac resynchronization therapy have no life-prolonging effect in this situation but only limit suffering, particularly due to dyspnea. Palliative care physicians must be informed that ICDs can be temporarily deactivated by magnet application, requiring neither a device specialist nor a programmer. Medical staff has to be trained in empathic discussions about CIED deactivation. An optimal setting for this talk may occur if the patient asks about the course and prognosis of his disease or an advance directive, which includes statements about resuscitation. Palliative care physicians have to understand the different functions of a CIED (antibradycardia pacing, resynchronization, antitachycardia pacing, shock therapy) and the deactivation of each of these components to ensure an appropriate decision; otherwise, CIED management at the end of a patient's life may cause suffering and a sense of guilt in relatives and medical staff.

Managing Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators at End-of-Life: Practical Challenges and Care Considerations

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) monitor for and terminate malignant arrhythmias. Given their potential as a life-saving therapy, an increasing number of people receive an ICD every year, and a growing number are currently living with ICDs. However, cardiopulmonary arrest serves as the final common pathway of natural death, and the appropriate management of an ICD near the end-of-life is crucial to ensure that a patient's death is not marked by further suffering due to ICD shocks. The tenets of palliative care at the end-of-life include addressing any medical intervention that may preclude dying with dignity; thus, management of ICDs during this phase is necessary. Internists are at the forefront of discussions about end-of-life care, and are likely to find discussions about ICD care at the end-of-life particularly challenging. The present review addresses issues pertaining to ICDs near the end of a patient's life and their potential impact on dying patients and their families. A multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach can ensure that patients receive the maximum benefit from ICDs, without any unintended pain or suffering.

Physicians' knowledge of implantable defibrillator treatment: are we good enough?

Aims

When admitted to hospitals, patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are treated in a variety of departments. Physicians need to have basic ICD knowledge in order to provide the best possible care from implantation to the end of life. The aim of this study was to assess the levels of knowledge concerning ICD treatment among physicians active in Cardiology, Internal Medicine, and Geriatrics.

Methods and results

This cross-sectional comparative study, after stratified sampling, distributed 432 surveys in 18 hospitals with a response rate of 99.5%. As many as 349 (83%) physicians had experience with ICD patients; 288 (68%) rated their ICD knowledge to be low. According to predefined criteria, 175 (41%) physicians' scores reflected sufficient knowledge. There was a significant difference in the level of knowledge between specialities. Sufficient knowledge was reached by 56 (30%) of the physicians in Internal Medicine and 20 (19%) of them in Geriatrics, whereas in Cardiology 99 (71%) reached sufficient knowledge.

Conclusion

There is lack of basic knowledge in ICD treatment and clinical management among physicians. The majority of the respondents had prior experience in treating ICD patients. Over two-thirds of the physicians rated their knowledge to be low, while test scores revealed sufficient knowledge in only 41% of the physicians surveyed. The lack of ICD knowledge is most prominent in Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, but it also extends to physicians in Cardiology departments. With an increasing number of ICD patients, it is of great importance to fill this knowledge gap as soon as possible.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device replacement considerations: upgrade or downgrade? A complex decision in the current clinical setting

There are limited data about the management of patients presenting for elective generator replacements in the setting of previously implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices that are nearing end-of-life. The individual patient's clinical status and concomitant morbidities may evolve so that considerations may include not only replacement of the pulse generator, but also potentially changing the type of device [e.g. downgrading CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) to CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) or ICD or upgrading of CRT-P to CRT-D]. Moreover, the clinical evidence for CRT-D/CRT-P implantation may change over time, with ongoing research and availability of new trial data. In this review we discuss the ethical, clinical and financial implications related to CRT generator replacements and the need for additional clinical trials to better understand which patients should undergo CRT device downgrading or upgrading at the time of battery depletion.

Replacement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

The aim of this EP Wire was to assess the management, indications, and techniques for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device replacement in Europe. A total of 24 centres in 14 European countries completed the questionnaire. All centres were members of the European Heart Rhythm Association Electrophysiology Research Network. Replacement procedures were performed by electrophysiologists in 52% of the centres, by cardiologists in 33%, and both in the remaining centres. In the majority of centres, the procedures were performed during a short hospitalization (<2 days; 61.2%), or on an outpatient basis (28%). The overwhelming majority of centres reported that they replaced ICDs at the end of battery life. Only in a small subset (<10%) of patients with ICD for primary prevention and without ventricular tachycardia (VT) since implantation, ICD was not replaced. In inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes, 80% of the centres always replaced the ICD at the end of battery life. After VT ablation, only few centres (9%) explanted or downgraded the device that was previously implanted for secondary prevention, but only in those patients without new VT episodes. Patient's life expectancy <1 year was the most commonly reported reason (61%) to downgrade from a CRT-D to a CRT-P device. While warfarin therapy was continued in 47% of the centres, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants were discontinued without bridging 24 h prior to replacement procedures in 60%. Finally, in 65% of the centres, VT induction and shock testing during ICD and CRT-D replacement were performed only in the case of leads with a warning or with borderline measurements. This survey provides a snapshot of the perioperative management, indications, and techniques of ICD and CRT device replacement in Europe. It demonstrates some variations between participating centres, probably related to local policies and to the heterogeneity of the ICD population.

Barriers to Goals of Care Discussions With Patients Who Have Advanced Heart Failure: Results of a Multicenter Survey of Hospital-Based Cardiology Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Conversations about goals of care in hospital are important to patients who have advanced heart failure (HF).

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter survey of cardiology nurses, fellows, and cardiologists at 8 Canadian teaching hospitals. The primary outcome was the importance of barriers to goals-of-care discussions in hospital (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). We also elicited perspectives on roles of different practitioners in having these conversations.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 770/1024 (75.2%) eligible clinicians. The most important perceived barriers were: family members' and patients' difficulty in accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score 5.9 [1.1] and 5.7 [1.2], respectively), family members' and patients' lack of understanding about the limitations and harms of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.1] and 5.7 [1.2], respectively), and lack of agreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]). Interprofessional team members were viewed as having different but important roles in goals-of-care discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiology clinicians perceive family and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals-of-care discussions in hospital. Many members of the interprofessional team were viewed as having important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication about goals of care in advanced HF.

Barriers to goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients with advanced heart failure: feasibility and performance of a novel questionnaire

Aims

Good end‐of‐life communication and decision‐making are important to patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and their families, but their needs remain unmet. In this pilot study, we describe the feasibility and performance of a novel questionnaire aimed at identifying barriers and solutions to improve communication and decision‐making about goals of care for hospitalized patients with advanced HF.

Methods

We distributed questionnaires to staff cardiologists, cardiology trainees, and cardiology nurses who provide care for HF patients at a Canadian teaching hospital. The questionnaire asked about the importance of various barriers to goals of care discussions. It also asked participants to rank their willingness to engage in goals of care discussions and their views on other clinicians could engage in such discussions.

Results

Of 76 clinicians, 44 (58%) completed the questionnaire (median completion time, 17 min). Individual survey questions had few missing responses (0% to 2%) for questions about barriers to goals of care discussions. There was appreciable discrimination of the importance of different barriers (mean scores 2.2 to 6.0 on a 7‐point scale). Preliminary data suggest that clinicians perceive patient and family factors, such as difficulty accepting a poor prognosis, as the most important barriers preventing goals of care discussions.

Conclusions

In this pilot study, we have demonstrated the feasibility of a novel questionnaire to be used in a larger multi‐centre study of end‐of‐life HF care. Essential information will be obtained to inform the design and evaluation of interventions that seek to improve communication and decision‐making about goals of care with HF patients.

Increased Incidence of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients With Advanced Cancer and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the incidence of ventricular arrhythmia and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies in patients with a diagnosis of cancer.

BACKGROUND

Cardiac disease and cancer are prevalent conditions and share common predisposing factors. No studies have assessed the impact of cancer on the burden of ventricular arrhythmia in patients with cancer and ICDs.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with an ICD and cancer who were followed from January 2007 to June 2015. Rates of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) before and after patients' cancers were diagnosed were evaluated by searching device data collection systems. Rates were adjusted for length of follow-up and compared using the Wilcoxon test, and times to first therapy following diagnosis (stages I to III vs. IV) were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test.

RESULTS

Among 1,598 patients with an ICD, 209 patients (13.1%) had a pathological diagnosis of malignancy; and in 102 patients (6.4%), malignancy was diagnosed following device insertion. After the diagnosis of cancer, 32% of patients experienced VT/VF over 23.2 ± 23.6 months, and the frequency of arrhythmic events was significantly increased after the diagnosis (1.19 ± 0.32 vs. 0.12 ± 0.21 episodes per month, respectively; p = 0.03). The incidence of VT/VF was markedly higher in patients with stage IV cancer than in those with earlier stages (p = 0.03). In this group, the incidence of VT/VF was 41.2%, with an average of 7.2 ± 18.5 events per patient, all of whom received ICD shocks. The rate of ICD deactivation in stage IV patients was 35.3%. Inappropriate therapies occurred in 13.7%, and atrial fibrillation was the most frequent cause.

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of patients who had received ICDs developed ventricular arrhythmia after a diagnosis of cancer. The incidence was significantly higher in those with advanced metastatic disease. Findings underscore the need to discuss ICD management as part of end-of-life care.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators at end of life

It is inevitable that all patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) will die during extended follow-up. End-of-life care planning may become appropriate as a patient's condition deteriorates. There is concern about multiple futile shocks in the final hours of life, although the incidence of this problem has been estimated at only 8-16%. Despite broad consensus that ICD deactivation should be discussed as part of end-of-life care planning, the effect of ICD deactivation, in particular whether life expectancy is altered, is uncertain. Many clinicians are reluctant to discuss ICD deactivation. Many patients have misconceptions regarding ICD function and value longevity above quality of life. As such, ICD deactivation is often discussed late or not at all. The management of ICDs in patients approaching death is likely to become a major problem in the coming years. This article will discuss directions in which clinical practice might develop and areas for future research.

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 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.

[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.

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.

"I felt like the angel of death": role conflicts and moral distress among allied professionals employed by the US cardiovascular implantable electronic device industry

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify themes associated with role conflicts and moral distress experienced by cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) industry-employed allied professionals (IEAPs) in the clinical setting.

METHODS

Focus groups were used to elicit perspectives from IEAPs who had deactivated a CIED.

RESULTS

Seventeen IEAPs (five women) reported increased clinical presence and work-related role conflicts and moral distress along several themes: (1) relationships with patients, (2) relationships with clinicians, (3) role ambiguity, (4) customer service to clinicians, and (5) CIED deactivation. Patients often misperceived IEAPs as physicians or nurses. Many physicians expected IEAPs to perform clinical duties. Customer service obligations exacerbated IEAP role conflicts and moral distress because of dual agency. IEAPs commonly received and carried out requests to deactivate CIEDs; doing so, however, generated considerable distress-particularly deactivations of pacemakers in pacemaker-dependent patients. Several described themselves as "angels of death." IEAPs had recommendations for mitigating role conflicts and moral distress, including improving the deactivation process.

CONCLUSIONS

IEAPs experienced role conflicts and moral distress regarding their activities in the clinical setting and customer service obligations. Health care institutions should develop and enforce clear boundaries between IEAPs and clinicians in the clinical setting. Clinicians and IEAPs should adhere to these boundaries.

"Just Because We Can Doesn't Mean We Should": views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management.

RESULTS

Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a "ticking time bomb."

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.