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

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.

Increasing Knowledge about Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators at the End of Life, an Effective Approach for Hospice Workers to Improve Patient Care

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) decrease mortality in high-risk patients but can also cause distressing shocks near death. Patients who lack knowledge about their ICDs are more likely to have an active device at the end of life. Many hospice workers lack sufficient knowledge to educate patients about ICDs.

MEASURES

An ICD educational video created for use in a diverse, underserved patient population was shown to hospice workers from two large community hospices and attendees of a regional conference. A validated 10 question survey was given to participants before and after the video.

OUTCOMES

Significant improvement in ICD knowledge scores was seen in all participants (W = 3119.5, P < 0.0001). While doctors and nurses showed higher pretest knowledge, post-test knowledge scores equalized across all participants.

CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED

An ICD patient educational video designed for a diverse, underserved patient population effectively improved ICD knowledge to a uniform excellent level for a broad range of hospice workers.

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.

Patients' openness to discussing implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life: a cross-sectional study

AIMS

It is recommended that patients and clinicians discuss end-of-life deactivation of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prior to device implantation and throughout the illness trajectory to facilitate shared decision-making. However, such discussions rarely occur, and little is known about patients' openness to this discussion. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with patients' openness to discussing end-of-life ICD deactivation with clinicians.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This cross-sectional study recruited 293 patients with an ICD from outpatient clinics in the USA, Australia, and South Korea. Patients were classified into an open or resistant group based on their desire to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore factors related to patients' openness to this discussion.About half of the participants (57.7%) were open to discussing such issues with their clinicians. Factors related to patients' openness to discussing device deactivation at end of life were living with someone, not having severe comorbid conditions (cancer and/or chronic kidney disease), greater ICD knowledge, and more experience discussing end-of-life issues with clinicians (odds ratio: 0.479, 0.382, 1.172, 1.332, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of the ICD recipients were reluctant to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Unmodifiable factors were their living arrangement and severe comorbidity. ICD knowledge and prior experience discussing end-of-life issues were potentially modifiable factors in the future. These factors should be addressed when assessing patients' readiness for a shared discussion about device deactivation at end of life.

'You can't start a car when there's no petrol left': a qualitative study of patient, family and clinician perspectives on implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the attitudes towards implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation and initiation of deactivation discussions among patients, relatives and clinicians.

DESIGN

A multiphase qualitative study consisting of in situ hospital ICD clinic observations, and semistructured interviews of clinicians, patients and relatives. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach.

SETTING

One tertiary and two district general hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

We completed 38 observations of hospital consultations prior to ICD implantation, and 80 interviews with patients, family members and clinicians between 2013 and 2015. Patients were recruited from preimplantation to postdeactivation. Clinicians included cardiologists, cardiac physiologists, heart failure nurses and palliative care professionals.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified from the data: the current status of deactivation discussions; patients' perceptions of deactivation; who should take responsibility for deactivation discussions and decisions; and timing of deactivation discussions. We found that although patients and doctors recognised the importance of advance care planning, including ICD deactivation at an early stage in the patient journey, this was often not reflected in practice. The most appropriate clinician to take the lead was thought to be dependent on the context, but could include any appropriately trained member of the healthcare team. It was suggested that deactivation should be raised preimplantation and regularly reviewed. Identification of trigger points postimplantation for deactivation discussions may help ensure that these are timely and inappropriate shocks are avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for early, ongoing and evolving discussion between ICD recipients and clinicians regarding the eventual need for ICD deactivation. The most appropriate clinician to instigate deactivation discussions is likely to vary between patients and models of care. Reminders at key trigger points, and routine discussion of deactivation at implantation and during advance care planning could prevent distressing experiences for both the patient and their family at the end of life.

Improving guideline-mandated care of patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Implantable cardiac defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in selected patients. The value of an implantable cardiac defibrillator declines as the patient's disease progresses. Guidelines suggest that the appropriateness of maintaining implantable cardiac defibrillator therapy be regularly reviewed as part of monitoring of the patient's disease trajectory. It is recommended that implantable cardiac defibrillators are deactivated as patients approach the end of life. Patients with a better understanding of their current state of health and the role that the implantable cardiac defibrillator plays within it are more likely to make informed decisions about the timing of deactivation.

METHODS

A quality improvement project was undertaken on appropriate deactivation of implantable cardiac defibrillators within a large tertiary cardiac centre. This was driven by audit data showing inadequate patient communication and documentation around deactivation. Drivers for change included the introduction of electronic data records, clinical review of comorbid patients approaching elective battery change and an ongoing forum for patient and carer education. Measured outcomes included the number of deactivations performed, evidence of patient discussion and consent, and timing of deactivation of the implantable cardiac defibrillator.

RESULTS

There were increased numbers of timely device deactivations undertaken following the interventions with improved documented evidence of patient discussion and consent. The educational forum was received favourably.

CONCLUSIONS

Focused multidisciplinary interventions can impact favourably on appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator deactivation and improve patient engagement.

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.

[Device therapy in cardiological palliative care situations]

There is considerable uncertainty about the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) threatened by immediate or medium-term death due to heart failure or other disease, for patients and their relatives as well as for physicians and medical staff. Patients can be afraid that they cannot die as long as pacing persists; medical staff may forget to deactivate shock therapies in an agonal phase or may not know how to do this without a programmer. For optimal handling of CIEDs in a palliative care situation, patients have to be informed that pacemakers or cardiac resynchronization therapy have no life-prolonging effect in this situation but only limit suffering, particularly due to dyspnea. Palliative care physicians must be informed that ICDs can be temporarily deactivated by magnet application, requiring neither a device specialist nor a programmer. Medical staff has to be trained in empathic discussions about CIED deactivation. An optimal setting for this talk may occur if the patient asks about the course and prognosis of his disease or an advance directive, which includes statements about resuscitation. Palliative care physicians have to understand the different functions of a CIED (antibradycardia pacing, resynchronization, antitachycardia pacing, shock therapy) and the deactivation of each of these components to ensure an appropriate decision; otherwise, CIED management at the end of a patient's life may cause suffering and a sense of guilt in relatives and medical staff.

Research Roundup

Synopses of a selection of recently published research articles of relevance to palliative care.

Educating Nurses About End-of-Life Care for Patients With Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators

Many people with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are living at home and receiving nursing services through home health care agencies. Near the end of life, it is not unusual for patients to request comfort measures and care that promotes quality rather than quantity of life. The purpose of this pilot study was twofold: (1) to educate home health care nurses on care of patients with ICDs nearing the end of life and (2) to measure changes in nurse knowledge pre to post educational session. None of the registered nurses in this study reported ever caring for a patient who had died with an ICD in place. Subsequently, their knowledge in end-of-life care surrounding this patient population significantly improved after the educational session (P < .006). Knowing how to care for such patients as they are dying is imperative for nurses, especially because many ICD recipients have insufficient knowledge themselves and can benefit from education provided by nurses.