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.

Advance care planning and end-of-life care in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: The perspective of relatives

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the last phase of life of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and the practice of advance care planning in this population.

AIM

To describe the last phase of life and advance care planning process of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and to assess relatives' satisfaction with treatment and care.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study, including a survey and focus group study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A survey among 170 relatives (response rate 59%) reporting about 154 deceased patients, and 5 subsequent focus groups with 23 relatives.

RESULTS

Relatives reported that 38% of patients had a conversation with a healthcare professional about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. Patients' and relatives' lack of knowledge about device functioning and the perceived lack of time of healthcare professionals were frequently mentioned barriers to advance care planning. Twenty-four percent of patients experienced a shock in the last month of life, which were, according to relatives, distressing for 74% of patients and 73% of relatives. Forty-two to sixty-one percent of relatives reported to be satisfied with different aspects of end-of-life care, such as the way in which wishes of the patient were respected. Quality of death was scored higher for patients with a deactivated device than those with an active device (6.74 vs 5.67 on a 10-point scale, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation was discussed with a minority of patients. Device shocks were reported to be distressing to patients and relatives. Relatives of patients with a deactivated device reported a higher quality of death compared to relatives of patients with an active device.

End-of-Life Care Preferences of Older Patients with Multimorbidity: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review

Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided.

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.

Evaluating the feasibility of conducting a trial using a patient decision aid in implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidates: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PtDA) support quality decision-making. The aim of this research was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial delivering an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-specific PtDA to new ICD candidates and examining preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.

METHODS

Prior to recruitment, ICD candidacy was determined. Consented patients were randomized to (1) usual care or (2) PtDA intervention. Feasibility outcomes included referral and recruitment rates, successful PtDA delivery, and completion of measures. The PtDA intervention was administered prior to specialist consultation and baseline demographics, and measures of decision quality including decisional conflict (DCS), SURE test (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement), patient's ICD specific values, ICD knowledge, and health-related quality of life were recorded. Post-consultation, participant's DCS was repeated and decisions to proceed, decline, or defer ICD implantation were collected. Feasibility data was determined using descriptive statistics (continuous and categorical). Preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes were assessed using mean differences. Concordance between values and decision choice was assessed using logistic regression of the intervention group.

RESULTS

We identified 135 eligible patients. Eighty-two consented to the trial randomizing patients to usual care (n = 41) or PtDA intervention (n = 41). Feasibility outcome results were (1) referral rate at approximately 20/month, (2) recruitment rate 61%, and (3) successful delivery of PtDA and study management. Pre-consultation, PtDA patients scored lower on the DCS scale (mean, standard deviation [SD] 27.3 (18.4) compared to usual care, 49.4 (18.6); the between-group difference in means [95% confidence interval (CI)] was - 22.1[- 30.23, - 13.97]. A difference remained post-implantation 21.2 (11.7), PtDA intervention 29.9 (13.3), and usual care - 8.7 [- 14.61, - 2.86]. SURE test results supported DCS differences. The PtDA group scored higher on the ICD-related knowledge questions, with 47.50% scoring greater than 3/5 of the knowledge questions correct, compared to 23.09% receiving usual care. The mean [SD] number of correct knowledge responses out of 5 was 3.33(1.19) in the PtDA group and 2.62 (1.16) in usual care pre-implant. Concordance between values and decision choice found a strong association between predicted and actual ICD implant status in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that a future definitive trial is feasible. The ICD-specific PtDA shows promise with respect to preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01876173.

Patient perceptions of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is a class I recommendation for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions to occur between physicians and heart failure patients. Few studies have reported the patient's perspective on the timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions.

AIM

To determine patient awareness, preferences and timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions.

DESIGN

Grounded theory was used to collect and analyze interview data from 25 heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, from the Heart Function Clinic at University Health Network (Toronto, Canada).

RESULTS

The sample (n = 25) was predominately male (76%) with an average age of 62 years. Patients identified three stages where they felt implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation should be discussed: (1) prior to implantation, (2) with any significant deterioration but while they were of sound mind to engage in and communicate their preferences and (3) at end of life, where patients wished further review of their previously established preferences and decisions about implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation. Most patients (n = 17, 68%) said they would consider deactivation, six (24%) were undecided and two (8%) were adamant they would never turn it off.

CONCLUSION

The patient preferences identified in this study support the need to include information on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation at implant, with change in clinical status and within broader discussions about end-of-life treatment preferences. Using this process to help patients determine and communicate their implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation preferences may reduce the number of patients experiencing distressing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks at end of life.

Perceived Benefits of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation among Heart Failure Patients and Its Relation to Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Patients with heart failure (HF) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) may misunderstand the indication of ICDs due to unsatisfactory information. The goal of this study is to evaluate the patient perspective of ICD indication and its relation to quality of life, as well as to identify probable communication gaps between doctors and ICD receivers.

Methods

A total of 119 patients with HF who were implanted with a single-chamber ICD were evaluated in outpatient clinics. Patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators were not included in the study. In a questionnaire, patients were asked about the indication of the ICD procedure and classified according to the perceived benefits.

Results

This study showed that most of the patients (n = 92, 77.3%) believed that ICD was implanted for improvement of heart dysfunction or for symptom relief. According to the perceived benefit groups, physical function, general health, vitality, and role physical scores were significantly lower in the symptom relief group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with HF and ICD mostly believed that the cardioverter defibrillator implanted for improving heart function or symptom relief. Doctors play a significant role when a patient is first referred for ICD because less-informed patients are more prone to misunderstand the procedure’s benefits. Moreover, unfulfilled expectations may lead to loss of confidence in applied therapies and result in poor health outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40119-015-0049-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients' perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at the end of life

BACKGROUND

Individualised care at the end of life requires professional understanding of the patient's perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the evidence on patients' perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life.

DESIGN

Systematic narrative review of empirical studies was published during 2008-2014.

DATA SOURCES

Data were collected from six databases, citations from relevant articles and expert recommendations.

RESULTS

In all, 18 studies included with collective population of n = 5810. Concept mapping highlighted three themes: (1) Diverse preferences regarding discussion and deactivation. Deactivation was rarely discussed pre-implantation, with some studies demonstrating patients' reluctance to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at any stage. Two studies found the majority of patients valued such discussions. Diversity was reflected in patients' willingness to deactivate, ranging from 12% (n = 9) in Irish cohort to 79% (n = 195) in Dutch study. (2) Ethical and legal considerations were predominant in Canadian and American literature as patients wanted to contribute but felt the decision should be a doctor's responsibility. Advance directives were uncommon in Europe, and where they existed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not mentioned. (3) 'Living in the now' was evident as despite deteriorating symptoms many patients maintained a positive outlook and anticipated surviving more than 10 years. Several studies asserted living longer was more important than quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Patients regard the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a complex and solely beneficial device, with little insight regarding its potential impact on a peaceful death. This review confirms the need for professionals to discuss with patients and families implantable cardioverter defibrillator functionality and deactivation at appropriate opportunities.

Normativity under change: Older persons with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

In modern society, death has become 'forbidden' fed by the medical technology to conquer death. The technological paradigm is challenged by a social-liberal political ideology in postmodern Western societies. The question raised in this study was as follows: Which arguments, attitudes, values and paradoxes between modern and postmodern tendencies concerning treatment and care of older persons with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator appear in the literature?

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe and interpret how the field of tension concerning older persons with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator - especially end-of-life issues - has been expressed in the literature throughout the last decade.

METHODS

Paul Ricoeur's reflexive interpretive approach was used to extract the meaningful content of the literature involving qualitative, quantitative and normative literature. Analysis and interpretation involved naive reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The investigation complied with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

The unifying theme was 'Normativity under change'. The sub-themes were 'Death has become legitimate', 'The technological imperative is challenged' and 'Patients and healthcare professionals need to talk about end-of-life issues'. There seems to be a considerable distance between the normative approach of how practice ought to be and findings in empirical studies.

CONCLUSION

Modern as well as postmodern attitudes and perceptions illustrate contradictory tendencies regarding deactivation of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator and replacement of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in older persons nearing the end of life. The tendencies challenge each other in a struggle to gain position. On the other hand, they can also complement each other because professionalism and health professional expertise cannot stand alone when the patient's life is at stake but must be unfolded in an alliance with the patient who needs to be understood and accepted in his vulnerability.

"It's not broke, so let's not try to fix it": why patients decline a cardiovascular implantable electronic device

BACKGROUND

Few patients decline therapy of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), and little is known about the characteristics or reasoning of those who do. Our objective was to describe the reasons why patients decline CIED implantation using qualitative methods.

METHODS

Qualitative, engaging thematic analysis. Three patient focus groups led by two trained facilitators and one semi-structured interview guide.

RESULTS

Of the 13 patients, two were women and all were white (median age [range], 65 [44-88] years). Five themes emerged: (1) don't mess with a good thing; (2) my health is good enough; (3) independent decision making; (4) it's your job, but it's my choice; and (5) gaps in learning. Most patients who decline CIEDs are asymptomatic. Other reasons to decline included feeling well, enjoying life, acceptance of the future, desire to try to improve health through diet and exercise, hearing of negative CIED experiences, and unwillingness to take on associated risks of CIED implantation. A medical record review showed that clinicians understand patients' reasons for declining CIED treatment. However, focus group data suggest that gaps in patients' knowledge around the purpose and function of CIEDs exist and patients may benefit from targeted education.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients decline implantation of CIEDs for various reasons. Most patients who decline therapy are asymptomatic at the time of their device consult. Focus group information show data suggestive that device consultations should be enhanced to address gaps in patient learning and confirm knowledge transfer. Clinicians should revisit treatment options iteratively.

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.

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.

Readability and content of patient education material related to implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly offered to patients for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Candidates for ICD receive ICD-related patient education material when they make decisions to consent or decline a primary prevention ICD. Printed patient education material directed at ICD candidates has not been the focus of direct appraisal.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the readability and content of ICD-related print education materials made available to patients who were enrolled in a study involving patient decision making for ICD from 3 ICD sites in southern Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

All ICD print materials referred to during interviews and/or that were available in ICD site waiting rooms were collected for analysis. Readability testing was conducted using the "simple measurement of gobbledygook" and Fry methods. The material was evaluated according to selected plain-language criteria, thematic content analysis, and rhetoric analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one print materials were identified and analyzed. Documents were authored by device manufacturers, tertiary care hospitals, and cardiac support organizations. Although many documents adhered to plain-language recommendations, text-reading levels were higher than recommended. Twelve major content themes were identified. Content focused heavily on the positive aspects of living with the device to the exclusion of other possible information that could be relevant to the decisions that patients made.

CONCLUSIONS

Print-based patient education materials for ICD candidates are geared to a highly literate population. The focus on positive information to the exclusion of potentially negative aspects of the ICD, or alternatives to accepting 1, could influence and/or confuse patients about the purpose and implications of this medical device. Development of print materials is indicated that includes information about possible problems and that would be relevant for the multicultural and debilitated population who may require ICDs. The findings are highly relevant for nurses who care for primary prevention ICD candidates.

Patients' experiences of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD); with a focus on battery replacement and end-of-life issues

BACKGROUND

ICD deactivation at end-of-life is technically uncomplicated. However, it may present a psychological challenge to healthcare professionals, patients, and next-of-kin.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored patients' experiences of complex issues of battery replacement and deactivation of the ICD.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were administered to 37 medically stable ICD-recipients.

RESULTS

The ICD-recipients lived with an uncertain illness trajectory, but the majority had not reflected on battery replacement or elective ICD deactivation. Healthcare professionals had rarely discussed these issues with patients. However, this was consistent with the ICD-recipients' wishes. Many patients had misconceptions about the lifesaving capacity of the ICD and the majority stated that they would not choose to deactivate the ICD, even if they knew they were terminally ill, and it meant they would receive multiple shocks.

CONCLUSION

The ICD-recipients tended not to think about end-of-life issues, which imply that many patients reach the final stages of life unaware of the option of ICD deactivation.

Ethical challenges with deactivation of durable mechanical circulatory support at the end of life: left ventricular assist devices and total artificial hearts

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and total artificial hearts (TAHs) are surgically implanted as permanent treatment of unrecoverable heart failure. Both LVADs and TAHs are durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that can prolong patient survival but also alter end-of-life trajectory. The permissibility of discontinuing assisted circulation is controversial because device deactivation is a life-ending intervention. Durable MCS is intended to successfully replace native physiological functions in heart disease. We posit that the presence of new lethal pathophysiology (ie, a self-perpetuating cascade of abnormal physiological processes causing death) is a central element in evaluating the permissibility of deactivating an LVAD or a TAH. Consensual discontinuation of durable MCS is equivalent with allowing natural death when there is an onset of new lethal pathophysiology that is unrelated to the physiological functions replaced by an LVAD or a TAH. Examples of such lethal conditions include irreversible coma, circulatory shock, overwhelming infections, multiple organ failure, refractory hypoxia, or catastrophic device failure. In all other situations, deactivating the LVAD/TAH is itself the lethal pathophysiology and the proximate cause of death. We postulate that the onset of new lethal pathophysiology is the determinant factor in judging the permissibility of the life-ending discontinuation of a durable MCS.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We know deactivating implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is permissible and should not complicate end-of-life care. However, patients and healthcare professionals still struggle with this concept. This review looks at the recent literature to find possible reasons behind this.

RECENT FINDINGS

ICD use is on the increase and is not always in accordance with best practice guidelines. The number of clinicians having conversations about deactivation is variable, but most of them agree that it is ethical and legal. Difficulty in initiating conversations is mainly due to lack of training, viewing ICDs as being different to conventional treatments and lack of clarity about legality. Patients' knowledge around deactivation and its ethical and legal standing is low. This can be improved by giving information about end-of-life options at the time of implantation and incorporating these within care plans. Use of ICDs should be reviewed in context of disease status and patients' goals.

SUMMARY

Deactivation of ICDs at end of life throws up challenges for clinicians and patients. This review points toward a need for communication training for clinicians and early initiation of discussion around the time of ICD insertion, as well improving clinicians' and patients' knowledge of the ethics and legality of deactivation.