Putting the “Informed” in the informed consent process for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Addressing the needs of the elderly patient

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.

Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients With Terminal Diagnoses

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death. However, in patients with terminal illnesses, these devices may disrupt the dying process. This study was undertaken to review our current strategies surrounding device deactivation. A retrospective chart review was performed at Kingston Health Sciences Centre of patients with an ICD who died from 2015 to 2018. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical details surrounding device implantation, patient co-morbidities leading to deactivation, time to deactivation, physical place of deactivation, and device programming information. Ethics approval was obtained from the Queen's University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board. A total of 49 patients were included for analysis. Mean age at the time of death was 77.5 years (range: 57 to 94 years) and 12.2% (6/49) were women. The indications for ICD implantation were primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in 69.4% (34/49) and secondary prevention in 30.6% (15/49). Deactivation as part of end-of-life care was performed in 32.7% of patients (16/49). Deactivations occurred in clinic in 6.1% (3/49) of patients, on hospital inpatient wards in 12.2% (6/49) of patients, and in critical care settings in 14.2% (7/49) of patients. The remaining 67.3% (33/49) of patients died with fully functioning devices in place. The most prevalent terminal diagnoses were metastatic cancer (22.4%) and end-stage congestive heart failure (20.4%). On average, patients had their devices deactivated 13 months (range: 0 to 62 months) after their terminal diagnosis was established. Once a patient was documented as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), deactivation was discussed and carried out within a mean time of 38 days (range: 0 to 400 days). Seven patients had their device active for more than 1 month after being documented as DNR. Ten patients (20.4%) received ICD shocks after their terminal diagnosis, 9 received shocks in the month before death, and 2 received shocks after formal DNR orders were in place. Approximately one-third of patients with ICDs received deactivation of their cardioversion/defibrillation therapies as part of their end-of-life care plan. A relatively high proportion of patients (20%) received an ICD shock in the last month of life. In conclusion, addressing device programming needs, including deactivation of cardioversion/defibrillation therapies, should be considered in the context of a patient's goals of care in every patient with an ICD who has a co-existing life-limiting diagnosis.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation and advance care planning: a focus group study

Objective

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators can treat life-threatening arrhythmias, but may negatively influence the last phase of life if not deactivated. Advance care planning conversations can prepare patients for future decision-making about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. This study aimed at gaining insight in the experiences of patients with advance care planning conversations about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

Methods

In this qualitative study, we held five focus groups with 41 patients in total. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed thematically, using the constant comparative method, whereby themes emerging from the data are compared with previously emerged themes.

Results

Most patients could imagine deciding to have their implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivated, for instance because the benefits of an active device no longer outweigh the harm of unwanted shocks, when having another life-limiting illness, or when relatives would think this would be in their best interest. Some patients expressed a need for advance care planning conversations with a healthcare professional about deactivation, but few had had these. Others did not, saying they solely focused on living. Some patients were hesitant to record their preferences about deactivation in advance care directives, because they were unsure whether their current preferences would reflect future preferences.

Conclusions

Although patients expressed a need for more information, advance care planning conversations about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation seemed to be uncommon. Deactivation should be more frequently addressed by healthcare professionals, tailored to the disease stage of the patient and readiness to discuss this topic.