Effective communication and ethical consent in decisions related to ICDs

Factors Associated With Levels of Public Engagement in Protective Behaviors During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: Causal-Comparative Study Based on the Health Belief Model

BACKGROUND

While the challenges of COVID-19 are still unfolding, the enhancement of protective behavior remains a top priority in global health care. However, current behavior-promoting strategies may be inefficient without first identifying the individuals with lower engagement in protective behavior and the associating factors.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify individuals with and potential contributing factors to low engagement in protective behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This is a causal-comparative study. A theory-based web-based survey was used to investigate individuals' protective behavior and potential associating factors. During June 2020, the distribution of the survey was targeted to 3 areas: Taiwan, Japan, and North America. Based on the theory of the health belief model (HBM), the survey collected participants' various perceptions toward COVID-19 and a collection of protective behaviors. In addition to the descriptive analysis, cluster analysis, ANOVA, and Fisher exact and chi-square tests were used.

RESULTS

A total of 384 responses were analyzed. More than half of the respondents lived in Taiwan, followed by Japan, then North America. The respondents were grouped into 3 clusters according to their engagement level in all protective behaviors. These 3 clusters were significantly different from each other in terms of the participants' sex, residency, perceived barriers, self-efficacy, and cues of action.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used an HBM-based questionnaire to assess protective behaviors against COVID-19 and the associated factors across multiple countries. The findings indicate significant differences in various HBM concepts among individuals with varying levels of behavioral engagement.

Integration of a palliative approach into heart failure care: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association position paper

The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology has published a previous position paper and various guidelines over the past decade recognizing the value of palliative care for those affected by this burdensome condition. Integrating palliative care into evidence-based heart failure management remains challenging for many professionals, as it includes the identification of palliative care needs, symptom control, adjustment of drug and device therapy, advance care planning, family and informal caregiver support, and trying to ensure a 'good death'. This new position paper aims to provide day-to-day practical clinical guidance on these topics, supporting the coordinated provision of palliation strategies as goals of care fluctuate along the heart failure disease trajectory. The specific components of palliative care for symptom alleviation, spiritual and psychosocial support, and the appropriate modification of guideline-directed treatment protocols, including drug deprescription and device deactivation, are described for the chronic, crisis and terminal phases of heart failure.

Enhancing the Informed Consent Process Using Shared Decision Making and Consent Refusal Data from the CLEAR III Trial

BACKGROUND

The process of informed consent in National Institutes of Health randomized, placebo-controlled trials is poorly studied. There are several issues regarding informed consent in emergency neurologic trials, including a shared decision-making process with the patient or a legally authorized representative about overall risks, benefits, and alternative treatments.

METHODS

To evaluate the informed consent process, we collected best and worst informed consent practice information from a National Institutes of Health trial and used this in medical simulation videos to educate investigators at multiple sites to improve the consent process. Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Phase III (CLEAR III) (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00784134) studied the effect of intraventricular alteplase (n = 251) versus saline (placebo) injections (n = 249) for intraventricular hemorrhage reduction. Reasons for ineligibility (including refusing to consent) for all screen failures were analyzed. The broadcasted presentation outlined best practices for doctor-patient interactions during the consenting process, as well as anecdotal, study-specific reasons for consent refusal. Best and worst consent elements were then incorporated into a simulation video to enhance the informed consent process. This video was disseminated to trial sites as a webinar around the midpoint of the trial to improve the consent process. Pre- and post-intervention consent refusals were compared.

RESULTS

During the trial, 10,538 patients were screened for eligibility, of which only three were excluded due to trial timing. Pre-intervention, 77 of 5686 (1.40%) screen eligible patients or their proxies refused consent. Post-intervention, 55 of 4849 (1.10%) refused consent, which was not significantly different from pre-intervention (P = 0.312). The incidence of screen failures was significantly lower post-intervention (P = 0.006), possibly due to several factors for patient exclusion.

CONCLUSION

The informed consent process for prospective randomized trials may be enhanced by studying and refining best practices based on trial-specific plans and patient concerns particular to a study.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator knowledge and end-of-life device deactivation: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

End-of-life implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation discussions should commence before device implantation and be ongoing, yet many implantable cardioverter defibrillators remain active in patients' last days.

AIM

To examine associations among implantable cardioverter defibrillator knowledge, patient characteristics and attitudes to implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey using the Experiences, Attitudes and Knowledge of End-of-Life Issues in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients Questionnaire. Participants were classified as insufficient or sufficient implantable cardioverter defibrillator knowledge and the two groups were compared.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients ( n = 270, mean age 61 ± 14 years; 73% male) were recruited from cardiology and implantable cardioverter defibrillator clinics attached to two tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, and two in Kentucky, the United States.

RESULTS

Participants with insufficient implantable cardioverter defibrillator knowledge ( n = 77, 29%) were significantly older (mean age 66 vs 60 years, p = 0.001), less likely to be Caucasian (77% vs 87%, p  = 0.047), less likely to have received implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks (26% vs 40%, p = 0.031), and more likely to have indications of mild cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment score <24: 44% vs 16%, p < 0.001). Insufficient implantable cardioverter defibrillator knowledge was associated with attitudes suggesting unwillingness to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation, even during the last days towards end of life ( p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients, especially those who are older or have mild cognitive impairment, often have limited knowledge about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. This study identified several potential teachable moments throughout the patients' treatment trajectory. An interdisciplinary approach is required to ensure that discussions about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation issues are initiated at appropriate time points, with family members ideally also included.

Cardiovascular implanted electronic devices in people towards the end of life, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and after death: guidance from the Resuscitation Council (UK), British Cardiovascular Society and National Council for Palliative Care

The Resuscitation Council (UK), the British Cardiovascular Society (including the British Heart Rhythm Society and the British Society for Heart Failure) and the National Council for Palliative Care recognise the importance of providing clear and consistent guidance on management of cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) towards the end of life, during cardiorespiratory arrest and after death. This document has been developed to provide guidance for the full range of healthcare professionals who may encounter people with CIEDs in the situations described and for healthcare managers and commissioners. The authors recognise that some patients and people close to patients may also wish to refer to this document. It is intended as an initial step to help to ensure that people who have CIEDs, or are considering implantation of one, receive explanation of and understand the practical implications and decisions that this entails; to promote a good standard of care and service provision for people in the UK with CIEDs in the circumstances described; to offer relevant ethical and legal guidance on this topic; to offer guidance on the delivery of services in relation to deactivation of CIEDs where appropriate; to offer guidance on whether any special measures are needed when a person with a CIED receives cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and to offer guidance on the actions needed when a person with a CIED dies.

Refusing Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) Replacement in Elderly Persons-The Same as Giving Up Life: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

More than 20% of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are implanted in the elderly population aged 80 years or older. In recent scientific literature it is suggested to consider termination of ICD therapy, rather than ICD replacement, in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of persons above 80 years of age concerning replacement of the ICD battery, and the shared communication and decision making with healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative, explorative study, inspired by Ricoeur's narrative, with a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach, involving 11 ICD patients older than 80 years. The study period was 2011-2012.

RESULTS

The meaning of the patients' experiences of living with an ICD was formulated into two themes: (1) "Feeling safe with the ICD" with the subthemes: "The ICD-a life keeper," "The battery level is important," "ICD shock-no problem." (2) "The physician is an authority" with the subthemes: "Being trustful," "Feeling fine knowing nothing," "Criminal act to deactivate the ICD."

CONCLUSION

The elderly ICD recipients tended not to be aware of the option of declining replacement of their ICD. They tended to expect to have their ICD replaced and not to be involved actively in decision making concerning this. Healthcare professionals have an obligation to discuss options and ensure that every patient understands these. More research is needed to change practices and create more realistic, person-centered, ethically acceptable, and constructive healthcare for elderly persons with an ICD.

Palliative Care Consultation and Associated End-of-Life Care After Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Deactivation

The presence of cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators complicates making end-of-life (EOL) medical decisions. Palliative care/medicine consultation (PCMC) may benefit patients and primary providers, but data are lacking. We retrospectively reviewed 150 charts of patients who underwent device deactivation at our tertiary care center (between November 1, 2008, and September 1, 2012), assessing for PCMC and outcomes. Overall, 42% of patients received a PCMC, and 68% of those PCMCs specifically addressed device deactivation. Median survival following deactivation was 2 days, with 42% of deaths occurring within 1 day of deactivation. There was no difference in survival between the groups. The EOL care for patients with implanted cardiac devices is complex, but PCMC may assist with symptom management and clarification of goals of care for such patients.

Struggling with issues about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for end-stage heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Integrating heart failure and palliative care teams combines unique expertise from both cardiology and palliative care. However, professionals from the two arenas of life-saving cardiology and palliative care may well have different experiences with and approaches to patient care. Little is known how to optimally discuss cardiopulmonary resuscitation with patients and their relatives and what challenges are for healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the experiences and thoughts of members of an integrated heart failure and palliative care team concerning talking about CPR with end-stage heart failure patients.

METHOD

We used a descriptive qualitative design, conducting group interviews during 2011 with professionals from different disciplines working with heart failure patients over a 1-year period. A qualitative content analysis was performed to examine the interview data.

RESULTS

Professional caregivers in integrated heart failure and palliative homecare are struggling with the issue of CPR of end-stage heart failure patients. They wrestle with the question of whether CPR should be performed at all in these terminally ill patients. They also feel challenged by the actual conversation about CPR with the patients and their relatives. Despite talking them about CPR with patients and relatives is difficult, the study participants described that doing so is important, as it could be the start of a broader end-of-life conversation.

CONCLUSION

Talking with patient and relatives about CPR in end-stage heart failure, as suggested in the current heart failure guidelines, is a challenge in daily clinical practice. It is important to discuss the difficulties within the team and to decide whether, whom, how and when to talk about CPR with individual patients and their relatives.

Are ICD recipients able to foresee if they want to withdraw therapy or deactivate defibrillator shocks?

BACKGROUND

Expert consensus statements on management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) emphasize the importance of having discussions about deactivation before and after implantation. These statements were developed with limited patient input. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with patients' experiences of end-of-life discussions, attitudes towards such discussions, and attitudes towards withdrawal of therapy (i.e., generator replacement and deactivation) at end-of-life, in a large national cohort of ICD-recipients.

METHODS

We enrolled 3067 ICD-patients, administrating the End-of-Life-ICD-Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Most (86%) had not discussed ICD-deactivation with their physician. Most (69%) thought discussions were best at end-of-life, but 40% stated that they never wanted the physician to initiate a discussion. Those unwilling to discuss deactivation were younger, had experienced battery replacement, had a longer time since implantation, and had better quality-of-life. Those with psychological morbidity were more likely to desire a discussion about deactivation. Many patients (39%) were unable to foresee what to decide about deactivation in an anticipated terminal condition. Women, those without depression, and those with worse ICD-related experiences were more indecisive about withdrawal of therapy. Irrespective of shock experiences, those who could take a stand regarding deactivation chose to keep shock therapies active in many cases (39%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite consensus statements recommending discussions about ICD-deactivation at the end-of-life, such discussion usually do not occur. There is substantial ambivalence and indecisiveness on the part of most ICD-patients in this nationwide survey about having these discussions and about expressing desires about deactivation in an anticipated end-of-life situation.

Self-care and communication issues at the end of life of recipients of a left-ventricular assist device as destination therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of self- care and communication issues at the end of life of patients with left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for destination therapy, based on recent research on end-of-life communication in other diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

For many patients with advanced heart failure, LVADs as destination therapy improve survival and quality of life. However, LVADs can be associated with complications, new comorbidities or worsening of previous conditions, resulting in decreased quality of life and limited prognosis, raising the need for planning palliative and end-of-life care. Open communication addressing the consequences of the LVAD implantation for daily life and the future (including advance directives) is advised in different stages of the treatment, involving a multidisciplinary team taking care of these complex patients and their caregivers.

SUMMARY

Healthcare professionals treating patients before and after LVAD implantation need to take an active role in end-of-life discussions and be able to communicate information regarding expected complications, quality of life and prognosis to the patients and caregivers. Research is needed addressing optimal ways and timing of communication with LVAD patients and families.

ICD and End-of-Life Discussions

An implanted cardiac defibrillator (ICD) is a unique indwelling device for the treatment of cardiac dysrhythmia and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. On February 4, 1980, the first ICD was implanted into a human subject. Thousands of Americans have been saved as a result of this device. Near the end of life, an active ICD may no longer be consistent with a patient’s needs and/or current health status. The very benefit of the device becomes the risk. Research has shown a deficit in recipient understanding of the role and function of the ICD. Likewise, there is a deficit in physician-led discussions and education of ICD deactivation in end-of-life care.