Do implantable cardioverter defibrillators complicate end-of-life care for those with heart failure?

"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.

Exploring Advance Directive Perspectives and Associations with Preferences for End-of-Life Life-Sustaining Treatments among Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Deactivation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a critical issue in the advance care planning (ACP) of ICD recipients; however, related perspectives have rarely been explored. Thus, this study aimed to provide an initial investigation of ICD recipients’ perceived susceptibility and barriers/benefits regarding ACP and/or advance directives (ADs), and associations of these modifiable factors with preferences for end-of-life life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) (cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), ventilator support, hemodialysis, and hospice care). Using a descriptive correlational design, 48 ICD recipients (age, 50.1 years; male, 85.4%) completed survey questionnaires. “No burden on family” was the most highly valued (59.1%), followed by “comfortable death” (20.4%), and both (11.4%). LST preference was 43.8% for ventilator support, 45.8% for both hemodialysis and hospice care, and 54.2% for CPR. Perceived susceptibility to having unexpected end-of-life experiences increased the likelihood of preference for aggressive LSTs, with preferences increasing by 15% for CPR, 17% for ventilator support, and 23% for hemodialysis. A non-modifiable factor, older age, was the only predictor of increased preference for hospice care (odds ratio = 1.09, p = 0.016). Among the modifiable factors, a higher perceived susceptibility increased the likelihood of aggressive LST preferences. The findings imply that to facilitate informed decisions for LSTs, early ACP discussion could be helpful and enhance these modifiable factors.

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.

Ethical challenges of deactivation of cardiac devices in advanced heart failure

More than 23 million adults worldwide have heart failure (HF). Although survival after heart failure diagnosis has improved over time, mortality from heart failure remains high. At the end of life, the chronic HF patient often becomes increasingly symptomatic, and may have other life-limiting comorbidities as well. Multiple trials have shown a clear mortality benefit with the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmia. However, patients who have an ICD may be denied the chance of a sudden cardiac death, and instead are committed to a slower terminal decline, with frequent DC shocks that can be painful and decrease the quality of life, greatly contributing to their distress and that of their families during this period. While patients with ICDs are routinely counseled with regard to the benefits of ICDs, they have a poor understanding of the options for device deactivation and related ethical and legal implications. Deactivating an ICD or not performing a generator change is both legal and ethical, and is supported by guidelines from both sides of the Atlantic. Patient autonomy is paramount, and no patient is committed to any therapy that they no longer wish to receive. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were initially used as bridge in patients awaiting heart transplantation, but they are currently implanted as destination therapy (DT) in patients with end-stage heart failure who have failed to respond to optimal medical therapy and who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. The decision-making process for initiation and deactivation of LVAD is becoming more and more ethically and clinically challenging, particularly for elderly patients.

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.