Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of advance directives in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients

The difficult discussion on the deactivation of implantable cardioverter devices at the end of life: a systematic review

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reliably prevent death due to life-threatening arrhythmias; this may become less relevant in people with more severe heart failure who are reaching the end of life (EOL). This review aimed to explore the ICD deactivation process and identify ethical issues, especially around the initiation of relevant discussions among professionals and patients. Available literature was reviewed using four electronic databases to identify issues that may deter healthcare professionals from having important deactivation discussions and to address considerations for ICD management prior to the EOL. The search resulted in the retainment of 12 studies. Three themes emerged from the data: barriers and facilitators, ethical considerations in clinical practice, and nurse's role. Lack of knowledge, which has been associated with cultural differences, has been found among the barriers, and interdisciplinary education and open communication appeared as facilitators. As clinicians' ethical considerations and fears emerged from the literature, nurses' special role has not been sufficiently supported. Complex care requires facilitation by multidisciplinary teams and education around the device's function regarding EOL issues. Establishing expert consensus statements on advance care planning might help define the distinct roles of each healthcare practitioner involved. Further research is needed in addressing the identified gaps.

Aligning goals with care: Advance directives in older adults with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Patients ≥80 with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have high rates of hospitalization and mortality, yet few have documented advance directives. We sought to determine the prevalence of advance directives in adults ≥80 years with ICDs, focusing on those with frailty and cognitive impairment.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study (July 2016-May 2019) in an electrophysiology clinic. Presence of advance directives (health care proxies [HCP] and living wills [LW], or medical orders for life-sustaining treatment [MOLST]) was determined by medical record review. Frailty and cognitive impairment were screened using 4-m gait speed and Mini-Cog.

RESULTS

77 Veterans were evaluated. Mean age 84 years, 100% male, 70% frail. Overall, 52 (68%) had an HCP and 37 (48%) had a LW/MOLST. Of 67 with cognitive testing, 36% were impaired. HCP documentation was similar among frail and non-frail (69% vs. 65%). LW/MOLST was more prevalent among frail versus non-frail (52% vs. 39%). There was no difference in HCP documentation by cognitive status (67%). A LW/MOLST was more frequent for cognitively impaired versus non-impaired (50% vs. 42%). Among 19 Veterans who were frail and cognitively impaired, 14 (74%) had an HCP and 11 (58%) had a LW/MOLST.

CONCLUSIONS

Most Veterans had a documented advance directive, but a significant minority did not. Simple frailty and cognitive screening tools can rapidly identify patients for whom discussion of advance directives is especially important.

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

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

Communication regarding the deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A scoping review and narrative summary of current interventions

OBJECTIVES

Communication about deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy at end-of-life (EoL) is a recognised issue within clinical practice. The aim of this scoping review was to explore and map the current literature in this field, with a focus on papers which implemented interventional studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches of six major databases were conducted. Citations were included by four researchers according to selection criteria. Key demographic data and prespecified themes in relation to communication of ICD deactivation at EoL were extracted.

RESULTS

The search found 6197 texts of which 63 were included: 39 quantitative, 14 qualitative and 10 mixed-methods. Surveys were predominantly used to gather data (n = 34), followed by interviews (n = 18) and retrospective reviews of patient records (n = 18).

CONCLUSIONS

Several key gaps in the literature warrant further research. These include who is responsible for initiating ICD deactivation discussions, how clinicians should initiate and conduct these discussions, when ICD deactivations should be occurring, and family perspectives. Adequately explored themes include patient and clinician knowledge and attitudes regarding ICD deactivation at EoL.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Facilities treating patients with ICDs at EoL should consider ongoing quality improvement projects aimed at clinician education and protocol changes to improve communication surrounding EoL ICD deactivation.

Value of Advance Care Directives for Patients With Serious Illness in the Era of COVID Pandemic: A Review of Challenges and Solutions

Advance care directives (ACDs) are instructions regarding what types of medical treatments a patient desires and/or who they would like to designate as a healthcare surrogate to make important healthcare decisions when the patient is mentally incapacitated. At end-of-life, when faced with poor prognosis for a meaningful health-related quality of life, most patients indicate their preference to abstain from aggressive, life-sustaining treatments. Patients whose wishes are left unsaid often receive burdensome life sustain therapy by default, prolonging patient suffering. The CoVID pandemic has strained our healthcare resources and raised the need for prioritization of life-sustaining therapy. This highlights the urgency of ACDs more than ever. Despite ACDs' potential to provide patients with care that aligns with their values and preferences and reduce resource competition, there has been relatively little conversation regarding the overlap of ACDs and CoVID-19. There is low uptake among patients, lack of training for healthcare professionals, and inequitable adoption in vulnerable populations. However, solutions are forthcoming and may include electronic medical record completion, patient outreach efforts, healthcare worker programs to increase awareness of at-risk minority patients, and restructuring of incentives and reimbursement policies. This review carefully describes the above challenges and unique opportunities to address them in the CoVID-19 era. If solutions are leveraged appropriately, ACDs have the potential to address the described challenges and ethically resolve resource conflicts during the current crisis and beyond.

"Why Would I Choose Death?": A Qualitative Study of Patient Understanding of the Role and Limitations of Cardiac Devices

BACKGROUND

Although cardiology organizations recommend early introduction of palliative care for patients with heart failure (HF), integration has remained challenging, particularly in patients with cardiac devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices and left ventricular assist devices. Study authors suggest that patients often have limited and erroneous understanding of these devices and their implications for future care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess perceptions of cardiac devices in patients with HF and how these perceptions impacted advance care planning and future expectations.

METHODS

This study used qualitative semistructured interviews with 18 community-dwelling patients with New York Heart Association stage II to IV HF.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 patients (mean ejection fraction, 38%; mean age, 64 years; 33% female; 83% white; 39% New York Heart Association class II, 39% class III, and 22% class IV). All had a cardiac implantable electronic device (6% permanent pacemaker, 56% implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 28% biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator); 11% had left ventricular assist devices. Patients with devices frequently misunderstood the impact of their device on cardiac function. A majority expressed the belief that the device would forestall further deterioration, regardless of whether this was the case. This anticipation of stability was often accompanied by the expectation that emerging technologies would continue to preempt decline. Citing this faith in technology, these patients frequently saw limited value in advance care planning.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, patients with cardiac devices overestimated the impact of their devices on preventing disease progression and death and deprioritized advance care planning as a result.

Unmet device reprogramming needs at the end of life among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators is increasingly common. As patients approach the end of life, it is appropriate to deactivate the shock function.

AIM

To assess the prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming to deactivate the shock function at the end of life and the prevalence of advance directives among this population.

DESIGN

Following a previously established protocol available in PROSPERO, we performed a narrative synthesis of our findings and used the logit transformation method to perform our quantitative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched seven bibliographic databases (Embase, Cochrane Central register of controlled Trials, Medline-Ovid, Web-of-Science, Scopus, PsychInfo, and CINAHL) and additional sources until April 2019.

RESULTS

Of the references we identified, 14 were included. We found a pooled prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming at the end of life of 28% (95% confidence interval, 22%-36%) with higher reprogramming rates after the recommendations for managing the device at the end of life were published. Among patients with advance directives, the pooled prevalence of advance directives that explicitly mentioned the device was 1% (95% confidence interval, 1%-3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming and advance directives that explicitly mentioned the device was very low. Study data suggested reprogramming decisions were made very late, after the patient experienced multiple shocks. Patient suffering could be ameliorated if physicians and other healthcare professionals adhere to clinical guidelines for the good management of the device at the end of life and include deactivating the shock function in the discussion that leads to the advance directive.

Content analysis of Advance Directives completed by patients with advanced cancer as part of an Advance Care Planning intervention: insights gained from the ACTION trial

PURPOSE

Writing an Advance Directive (AD) is often seen as a part of Advance Care Planning (ACP). ADs may include specific preferences regarding future care and treatment and information that provides a context for healthcare professionals and relatives in case they have to make decisions for the patient. The aim of this study was to get insight into the content of ADs as completed by patients with advanced cancer who participated in ACP conversations.

METHODS

A mixed methods study involving content analysis and descriptive statistics was used to describe the content of completed My Preferences forms, an AD used in the intervention arm of the ACTION trial, testing the effectiveness of the ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention.

RESULTS

In total, 33% of 442 patients who received the ACTION RC ACP intervention completed a My Preferences form. Document completion varied per country: 10.4% (United Kingdom), 20.6% (Denmark), 29.2% (Belgium), 41.7% (the Netherlands), 61.3% (Italy) and 63.9% (Slovenia). Content analysis showed that 'maintaining normal life' and 'experiencing meaningful relationships' were important for patients to live well. Fears and worries mainly concerned disease progression, pain or becoming dependent. Patients hoped for prolongation of life and to be looked after by healthcare professionals. Most patients preferred to be resuscitated and 44% of the patients expressed maximizing comfort as their goal of future care. Most patients preferred 'home' as final place of care.

CONCLUSIONS

My Preferences forms provide some insights into patients' perspectives and preferences. However, understanding the reasoning behind preferences requires conversations with patients.

Perspectives on advance care planning and palliative care among adults with congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) report that advance care planning (ACP) is important, and that they want information about prognosis. However, recognizing importance and being willing to participate are different constructs, and how and when to begin ACP and palliative care discussions remains ill-defined.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 150 consecutive outpatients to assess willingness to participate in ACP, with whom, and important barriers and facilitators to these discussions.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (69%) reported being willing to participate in ACP; 79% to have a meeting to discuss goals and care preferences; and 91% to speak to a clinician who specializes in palliative care. Being married and anticipating a shorter lifespan were associated with increased reported willingness to participate in ACP. The health care provider with whom most participants preferred to have these discussions was their ACHD clinician. Participants identified important barriers and facilitators to these discussions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ACHD report being willing to participate in ACP and palliative care discussions. Patients prefer to have these discussions with their ACHD clinicians, thus ACHD clinicians need to be prepared to address these issues as part of routine care.