Destination nowhere: a potential dilemma with ventricular assist devices

Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have advanced heart failure and experience severe symptoms (e. g., dyspnea) with minimal exertion or at rest despite optimal management. Although heart transplant is an effective treatment for advanced heart failure, the demand for organs far exceeds the supply. Another option for these patients is mechanical circulatory support (MCS) provided by devices such as the ventricular assist device and total artificial heart. MCS alleviates symptoms, prolongs life, and provides a “bridge to transplant” or a decision regarding future management such as “destination therapy,” in which the patient receives lifelong MCS. However, a patient receiving MCS, or his/her surrogate decision-maker, may conclude ongoing MCS is burdensome and no longer consistent with the patient's healthcare-related values, goals, and preferences and, as a result, request withdrawal of MCS. Likewise, the patient's clinician and care team may conclude ongoing MCS is medically ineffective and recommend its withdrawal. These scenarios raise ethical and legal concerns. In the U.S., it is ethically and legally permissible to carry out an informed patient's or surrogate's request to withdraw any treatment including life-sustaining treatment (LST) if the intent is to remove a treatment perceived by the patient as burdensome and not to terminate intentionally the patient's life. Under these circumstances, death that follows withdrawal of the LST is due to the underlying disease and not a form of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. In this article, frequently encountered ethical and legal concerns regarding requests to withdraw MCS are reviewed: the ethical and legal permissibility of withholding or withdrawing LSTs from patients who no longer want such treatments; what to do if the clinician concludes ongoing LST will not result in achieving clinical goals (i.e., medically ineffective); responding to requests to withdraw LST; the features of patients who undergo withdrawal of MCS; the rationale for advance care planning in patients being considered for, or receiving, MCS; and other related topics. Notably, this article reflects a U.S. perspective.

Thrombectomy of Ventricular Assist Device-Originated Embolic Stroke: A Clinical Decision Model

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) for the treatment of heart failure has become increasingly common. These patients have a considerable risk of cerebral embolism. We describe such a patient and his successful treatment by thrombectomy, compare his attributes with those previously published, and describe the construct of a clinical decision model, whose results bear practical implications for patient management.

METHODS

The details of our patient and his treatment are presented, followed by a literature review of all previously reported similar cases. Using this information, as well as that available from published series, we constructed a probabilistic decision tree, completed all calculations (ie, "folding back"), and, in order to assess the strength of the results, subjected them to multiple independent sensitivity analyses of each of the variables.

RESULTS

The therapeutic success of our case, the 14th reported to date, when combined with previous reports, shows: (1) recanalization times of 184 minutes, (2) "successful" recanalization (ie, TICI = 2b or 3) achieved in 71% of procedures, (3) ultimate functional outcome (ie, mRS = 0-2) achieved in 57% patients, and (4) ultimate successful heart transplantations in 66% of cases. The clinical decision model showed the predicted utility of thrombectomy to be superior to conservative management (3.33 QALY vs. 2.56 QALY, respectively). The sensitivity analyses support the validity of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, thrombectomy appears to be a safe and effective method (and often the only viable one) for urgent treatment of patients with VAD-originated cerebral embolism.

Ethical Analysis of Withdrawing Total Artificial Heart Support

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics of patients who undergo withdrawal of total artificial heart support and to explore the ethical aspects of withdrawing this life-sustaining treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all adult recipients of a total artificial heart at Mayo Clinic from the program's inception in 2007 through June 30, 2015. Management of other life-sustaining therapies, approach to end-of-life decision making, engagement of ethics and palliative care consultation, and causes of death were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 47 total artificial heart recipients, 14 patients or their surrogates (30%) requested withdrawal of total artificial heart support. No request was denied by treatment teams. All 14 patients were supported with at least 1 other life-sustaining therapy. Only 1 patient was able to participate in decision making.

CONCLUSION

It is widely held to be ethically permissible to withdraw a life-sustaining treatment when the treatment no longer meets the patient's health care-related goals (ie, the burdens outweigh the benefits). These data suggest that some patients, surrogates, physicians, and other care providers believe that this principle extends to the withdrawal of total artificial heart support.

Palliative Care for the Geriatric Anesthesiologist

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

[Rehabilitation standards for follow-up treatment and rehabilitation of patients with ventricular assist device (VAD)]

The increasing use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) in terminal heart failure patients provides new challenges to cardiac rehabilitation physicians. Structured cardiac rehabilitation strategies are still poorly implemented for this special patient group. Clear guidance and more evidence for optimal modalities are needed. Thereby, attention has to be paid to specific aspects, such as psychological and social support and education (e.g., device management, INR self-management, drive-line care, and medication).In Germany, the post-implant treatment and rehabilitation of VAD Patients working group was founded in 2012. This working group has developed clear recommendations for the rehabilitation of VAD patients according to the available literature. All facets of VAD patients' rehabilitation are covered. The present paper is unique in Europe and represents a milestone to overcome the heterogeneity of VAD patient rehabilitation.

Neuroendovascular Interventions for Acute Ischemic Strokes in Patients Supported with Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Single-Center Case Series and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

With the shortage of donor hearts, increasingly more patients with end-stage heart failure are implanted with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). LVADs are associated with a significant risk of developing acute ischemic strokes (AISs). Very little is known on about the management of AIS in patients with LVAD, especially with regard to the safety and efficacy of neuroendovascular techniques.

METHODS

We identified 5 patients with heart failure and LVAD implants who developed AIS and underwent neuroendovascular interventions at Columbia University Medical Center. Their cases were reviewed for the safety, efficacy of the interventions, and potential complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant complications from the interventions. In all 5 cases, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the National Institutes of Health Stroke scale and none of the cases developed symptomatic hemorrhage. Two patients had substantial improvement and received cardiac transplantations.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuroendovascular intervention is safe and feasible in patients with LVAD and may potentially contribute to improving the outcome of a disease that has a poor natural history. Further study is recommended.

Destination to nowhere: a new look at aggressive treatment for heart failure--a case study

Approximately 5.7 million people in the United States experience heart failure, and about 670 000 new cases are diagnosed annually. Patients who are ineligible for heart transplant may benefit from a left ventricular assist device. These devices have provided patients with an increased life span, but eventually patients die of the underlying heart disease. This case study illustrates the appropriate use of palliative care teams to address preparedness planning and help decrease moral distress among nursing staff. (Critical Care Nurse. 2014; 34[2]:47-56).

Preparedness planning before mechanical circulatory support: a "how-to" guide for palliative medicine clinicians

The role of palliative medicine in the care of patients with advanced heart failure, including those who receive mechanical circulatory support, has grown dramatically in the last decade. Previous literature has suggested that palliative medicine providers are well poised to assist cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and the multidisciplinary cardiovascular team with promotion of informed consent and initial and iterative discussions regarding goals of care. Although preparedness planning has been described previously, the actual methods that can be used to complete a preparedness plan have not been well defined. Herein, we outline several key aspects of this approach and detail strategies for engaging patients who are receiving mechanical circulatory support in preparedness planning.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ethical analysis of withdrawing ventricular assist device support

OBJECTIVE

To describe a series of patients with heart failure supported with a ventricular assist device (VAD) who requested (or whose surrogates requested) withdrawal of VAD support and the legal and ethical aspects pertaining to these requests.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, from March 1, 2003, through January 31, 2009, who requested (or whose surrogates requested) withdrawal of VAD support and for whom the requests were fulfilled. We then explored the legal and ethical permissibility of carrying out such requests.

RESULTS

The median age of the 14 patients identified (13 men, 1 woman) was 57 years. Requests were made by 2 patients and 12 surrogates. None of the patients' available advance directives mentioned the VAD. For 11 patients, multidisciplinary care conferences were held before withdrawal of VAD support. Only 1 patient had an ethics consultation. All 14 patients died within 1 day of withdrawal of VAD support.

CONCLUSION

Patients have the right to refuse or request the withdrawal of any unwanted treatment, and we argue that this right extends to VAD support. We also argue that the cause of death in these cases is the underlying heart disease, not assisted suicide or euthanasia. Therefore, patients with heart failure supported with VADs or their surrogates may request withdrawal of this treatment. In our view, carrying out such requests is permissible in accordance with the principles that apply to withdrawing other life-sustaining treatments.

Hoping for a miracle: supporting patients in transplantation and cardiac assist programs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Palliative medicine is often viewed as a medical specialty reserved for end of life care. This review focuses on the role that palliative care can play in transplant and cardiac assist device programs, along the continuum of a patient's disease course.

RECENT FINDINGS

In general, transplant and cardiac assist programs do not incorporate palliative medicine during the treatment course, but rather reserve it for when the patient is approaching death and is no longer a candidate for transplant or device therapy. There is a new shift, however, to viewing the practice of aggressive medicine and palliative medicine as 'shared care' so as to optimize the patient's quality of life throughout his or her illness.

CONCLUSION

Transplant and cardiac assist device programs should not exclude the practice of palliative care in their daily work. Palliative care is not 'giving up' rather it is optimizing the quality of a patient's life irrespective of the level of disease severity and prognosis.

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

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