Clinicians' views regarding deactivation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in seriously ill patients

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.

Patients' Perspective on Termination of Pacemaker Therapy-A Cross-Sectional Anonymous Survey among Patients Carrying a Pacemaker in Germany

OBJECTIVE

To determine the opinions of patients regarding the withdrawal of pacemaker therapy.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional anonymous questionnaire was administered to patients visiting an outpatient cardiologic clinic for routine follow-up visits of pacemaker therapy or patients carrying a pacemaker admitted to a hospital between 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients answered the questionnaire. A total of 56% of the participants were male. The mean age was 81 years. The majority of respondents were very comfortable with their PM and felt well informed, with one exception: more than half of respondents were missing information on withdrawal of pacemaker therapy. Almost two-thirds wanted to decide for themselves if their pacemaker therapy was withdrawn regardless of whether they were ill or healthy. Almost 60% of patients would like the pacemaker to be turned off when dying. Women expressed this wish significantly more often than men.

CONCLUSION

Our survey shows that patients prefer to be informed on issues regarding the withdrawal of pacemakers as early as preimplantation. Also, patients would like to be involved in decisions that have to be made at the end of life, including decisions on withdrawal. Offers of conversations about this important issue should include information on special features of the patient's pacemaker, e.g., the absence or presence of pacemaker dependency. Knowledge about the pacemaker's functionality may prevent distress among individuals nearing their end of life when, for example, under the false impression that timely deactivation may allow for a more peaceful death.

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.

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.

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.