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.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)‐supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD‐ supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient‐device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD‐supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non‐cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end‐of‐life approaches are described.

Characteristics of Clinicians Are Associated With Their Beliefs About ICD Deactivation: Insight From the DECIDE-HF Study

Background

Discussing goals of care with heart failure patients is recommended but is not done systematically, due to factors such as time and personal beliefs. A recent survey showed that one-fifth of clinicians believe that implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation (ICDD) is unethical or constitutes physician-assisted suicide. We investigated whether individuals’ characteristics are associated with these beliefs.

Methods

The Decision-Making About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure (DECIDE-HF) survey was given to healthcare providers at 9 hospitals to assess their perceived barriers to goals-of-care discussions. The association between respondent characteristics and their beliefs was examined using 2 adjusted logistic regression models.

Results

We included 760 clinicians (459 nurses, 94 fellows, and 207 cardiologists). The responses varied among professions, with the belief that ICDD is unethical considered to be important barrier by nurses (24%), fellows (10%), and staff (7%); P < 0.001). After adjusting for site, spirituality being more important in life (odds ratio [OR]: 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.37-3.56; P = 0.001, compared to less important), region of training (Asia [OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.12-16.31; P = 0.001] and Middle East [OR: 5.55; 95% CI:1.57-19.63; P = 0.008] compared to Canada), and years in practice (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.07-1.63; P = 0.01 per decade) influenced beliefs about ICDD being unethical, with similar results for the belief that ICDD represents physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusions

Sociocultural factors, region of training, and profession influence clinicians’ beliefs about ICDD being unethical and representing physician-assisted suicide. These factors and beliefs must be acknowledged when facing the delicate issue of end-of-life discussion.

'Life with a device': the octogenarians' experiences with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-a qualitative study

AIMS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment has expanded due to its effectiveness. However, there are concerns about complications, and use in the most elderly has been questioned. There is scarce data on qualitative aspects regarding experiences of living with an ICD among patients above the age of 80 years. The aim of this study was to explore octogenarians' experience, knowledge, and attitude of living with an ICD.

METHOD AND RESULTS

We used semi-structured interviews to collect data from 20 patients, aged 80-89 years (90% men). The data were then structured and analysed through deductive thematic analysis network approach using the ATLAS.ti v.8.4 software. The framework of the analysis was based on the Successful Aging Theory. Three main themes emerged regarding the patients' experiences: Life goes on; Their Health, The Janus-Faced Device; Their attitudes, and Mind the gap; Their knowledge. None of the octogenarians regretted receiving their ICD, instead, they presented with feelings such as gratitude towards the device. However, a lack of knowledge about the devices was expressed, which can be a risk for potential complications, in turn causing suffering and unnecessary concerns.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the ICD did not pose a threat towards successful ageing. It was mainly considered a life-saving device. However, the lack of knowledge might hinder informed choices close to death and contribute to ethical dilemmas when deactivation of the ICD is a reasonable option.

Integration of a palliative approach into heart failure care: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association position paper

The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology has published a previous position paper and various guidelines over the past decade recognizing the value of palliative care for those affected by this burdensome condition. Integrating palliative care into evidence-based heart failure management remains challenging for many professionals, as it includes the identification of palliative care needs, symptom control, adjustment of drug and device therapy, advance care planning, family and informal caregiver support, and trying to ensure a 'good death'. This new position paper aims to provide day-to-day practical clinical guidance on these topics, supporting the coordinated provision of palliation strategies as goals of care fluctuate along the heart failure disease trajectory. The specific components of palliative care for symptom alleviation, spiritual and psychosocial support, and the appropriate modification of guideline-directed treatment protocols, including drug deprescription and device deactivation, are described for the chronic, crisis and terminal phases of 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.

Unmet device reprogramming needs at the end of life among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators is increasingly common. As patients approach the end of life, it is appropriate to deactivate the shock function.

AIM

To assess the prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming to deactivate the shock function at the end of life and the prevalence of advance directives among this population.

DESIGN

Following a previously established protocol available in PROSPERO, we performed a narrative synthesis of our findings and used the logit transformation method to perform our quantitative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched seven bibliographic databases (Embase, Cochrane Central register of controlled Trials, Medline-Ovid, Web-of-Science, Scopus, PsychInfo, and CINAHL) and additional sources until April 2019.

RESULTS

Of the references we identified, 14 were included. We found a pooled prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming at the end of life of 28% (95% confidence interval, 22%-36%) with higher reprogramming rates after the recommendations for managing the device at the end of life were published. Among patients with advance directives, the pooled prevalence of advance directives that explicitly mentioned the device was 1% (95% confidence interval, 1%-3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming and advance directives that explicitly mentioned the device was very low. Study data suggested reprogramming decisions were made very late, after the patient experienced multiple shocks. Patient suffering could be ameliorated if physicians and other healthcare professionals adhere to clinical guidelines for the good management of the device at the end of life and include deactivating the shock function in the discussion that leads to the advance directive.

Producing an effective care plan in advanced heart failure

An effective discharge plan is associated with better outcomes in advanced heart failure (HF) patients. Furthermore, a patient-centred care planning can improve patients' satisfaction, quality of life, and enhance self-care. Telemedicine may allow optimized monitoring of advanced HF patients. Nevertheless, its implementation into clinical practice across European countries is still limited. This document reflects the key points discussed concerning effective management plans in advanced HF by a panel of experts during a Heart Failure Association meeting on physiological monitoring of the complex multimorbid HF patient.

Patient and Professional Factors That Impact the Perceived Likelihood and Confidence of Healthcare Professionals to Discuss Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Deactivation in Advanced Heart Failure: Results From an International Factorial Survey

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Background:

Rate of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantations is increasing in patients with advanced heart failure. Despite clear guideline recommendations, discussions addressing deactivation occur infrequently.

Aim:

The aim of this article is to explore patient and professional factors that impact perceived likelihood and confidence of healthcare professionals to discuss ICD deactivation.

Methods and Results:

Between 2015 and 2016, an international sample of 262 healthcare professionals (65% nursing, 24% medical) completed an online factorial survey, encompassing a demographic questionnaire and clinical vignettes. Each vignette had 9 randomly manipulated and embedded patient-related factors, considered as independent variables, providing 1572 unique vignettes for analysis. These factors were determined through synthesis of a systematic literature review, a retrospective case note review, and a qualitative exploratory study. Results showed that most healthcare professionals agreed that deactivation discussions should be initiated by a cardiologist (95%, n = 255) or a specialist nurse (81%, n = 215). In terms of experience, 84% of cardiologists (n = 53) but only 30% of nurses (n = 50) had previously been involved in a deactivation decision. Healthcare professionals valued patient involvement in deactivation decisions; however, only 50% (n = 130) actively involved family members. Five of 9 clinical factors were associated with an increased likelihood to discuss deactivation including advanced age, severe heart failure, presence of malignancy, receipt of multiple ICD shocks, and more than 3 hospital admissions during the previous year. Furthermore, nationality and discipline significantly influenced likelihood and confidence in decision making.

Conclusions:

Guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals discuss ICD deactivation; however, practice is suboptimal with multifactorial factors impacting on decision making. The role and responsibility of nurses in discussing deactivation require clarity and improvement.

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.

The influence of age on the psychological profile of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: results from the Italian population in a multicenter study conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are widely used to treat bradyarrhythmias or improve the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF).

AIMS

To evaluate age-related (≤ 75 vs. > 75 years) attitudes, worries, psychological effects and needs in an Italian CIEDs population.

METHODS

Patients attending their periodical ambulatory evaluation received a questionnaire conceived by the European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Initiatives Committee as part of a multicenter, multinational snapshot survey. Seven countries participated in the study, and 1646 replies were collected. Of these, 437 (27%) were from Italy. Present results refer to the Italian population only. CIEDs were stratified into devices to treat bradycardia or HF.

RESULTS

The use of CIEDs was more common in advanced age. Older patients needed less information about CIEDs than younger ones (p = 0.044), who would prefer to be better informed about CIEDs-related consequences on psychologic profile (p = 0.045), physical (p < 0.001) and sexual (p < 0.001) activities, and driving limitations (p = 0.003). When compared to older subjects, younger individuals experienced more difficulties (p = 0.035), especially in their professional (p < 0.001) and private life (p = 0.033), feeling their existence was limited by the device (p < 0.001). Conversely, quality of life (HRQL) more often improved in the elderly (p = 0.001). Information about what to do with CIEDs at the end of life is scant independently of age.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQL after CIEDs implantation improves more frequently in older patients, while the psychological burden of CIEDs is usually higher in younger patients. End of life issues are seldom discussed.

Variables Related to Communication About Prognosis Between Nurses and Patients at Heart Failure Clinics in Sweden and the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

In contrast to recommendations in recent guidelines, prognosis is not optimally discussed with patients with heart failure (HF). Reasons for not doing so can be related to both patient and provider characteristics.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to explore which patient- and nurse-related variables influence discussing prognosis with patients at an HF clinic.

METHOD

Data from a previous survey on attitudes and clinical practice of HF nurses on discussing prognosis that was conducted in Sweden and the Netherlands were combined with data from a registration on topics that nurses discussed with their patients during a prespecified week at the HF clinic. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess which variables are related to discussing prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 275 HF nurses (mean age, 49 years) and data of 1633 patients with HF (mean age, 71 years) were included in the study. Prognosis was discussed with 42% of all patients during the visit at the HF clinic. Patients with whom prognosis was discussed were more often in New York Heart Association classes III to IV (odds ratio [OR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-2.26). Nurses discussing prognosis reported more knowledge on the topic (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.16) and discussed more topics with the patient (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.21-1.32). Dutch HF nurses were more likely to discuss prognosis compared with their Swedish colleagues (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.43-2.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Discussing prognosis with patients with HF by nurses at the HF clinic is related to the characteristics of patients and HF nurses. Future interventions to improve communications about prognosis therefore should have a broad approach.

Trends in time in the management of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the last phase of life: a retrospective study of medical records

BACKGROUND

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) might give unwanted shocks in the last month of life. Guidelines recommend deactivation of the ICD prior to death.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to examine trends in time (2007-2016) in how and when decisions are made about ICD deactivation, and to examine patient- and disease-related factors which may have influenced these decisions. In addition, care and ICD shock frequency in the last month of life of ICD patients are described.

METHODS

Medical records of a sample of deceased patients who had their ICD implanted in 1999-2015 in a Dutch university (n = 308) or general (n = 72) hospital were examined.

RESULTS

Median age at death was 71 years, and 88% were male. ICD deactivation discussions increased from 6% for patients who had died between 2007 and 2009 to 35% for patients who had died between 2013 and 2016. ICD deactivation rates increased in these periods from 16% to 42%. Presence of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders increased from 9% to 46%. Palliative care consultations increased from 0% to 9%. When the ICD remained active, shocks were reported for 7% of patients in the last month of life. Predictors of ICD deactivation were the occurrence of ICD deactivation discussions after implantation (OR 69.30, CI 26.45-181.59), DNR order (OR 6.83, CI 4.19-11.12), do-not-intubate order (OR 6.41, CI 3.75-10.96), and palliative care consultations (OR 8.67, CI 2.76-27.21).

CONCLUSION

ICD deactivation discussions and deactivation rates have increased since 2007. Nevertheless, ICDs remain active in the majority of patients at the end of life, some of whom experience shocks.

Incorporating patients' preference diagnosis in implantable cardioverter defibrillator decision-making: a review of recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Strong recommendations exist for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in appropriately selected patients. Yet, patient preferences are not often incorporated when decisions about ICD therapy are made. Literature published since 2016 was reviewed aiming to discuss current advances and ongoing challenges with ICD decision-making in adults, discuss shared decision-making (SDM) as a strategy to incorporate preference diagnoses, summarize current evidence on effective interventions to facilitate SDM, and identify opportunities for research and practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in risk stratification can identify patients who will most and least likely benefit from the ICD. Interventions to support SDM are emerging. These interventions present options, the risks, and the benefits of each option, and elicit patients' values and preferences regarding possible outcomes.

SUMMARY

Appropriate patient selection for initial or continued ICD therapy is multifactorial. It requires accurate clinical diagnosis using careful risk stratification and accurate preference diagnosis based upon the patient's preferences. SDM aims to unite the elements that constitute these two equally important diagnoses. High-quality decision-making will be difficult to achieve if patients lack or misunderstand information, and if evolving patient preferences are not incorporated when making decisions.

The incidence and impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks in the last phase of life: An integrated review

BACKGROUND

Although the implantable cardioverter defibrillator is successful in terminating life threatening arrhythmias, it might give unwanted shocks in the last phase of life if not deactivated in a timely manner.

AIMS

This integrated review aimed to provide an overview of studies reporting on implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock incidence and impact in the last phase of life.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched five electronic databases. Studies reporting on the incidence and/or impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks in the last month of life were included. Fifteen studies were included. Two American studies published in 1996 and 1998 reported on the incidence of shocks in patients who died non-suddenly: incidences were 24% and 33%, respectively, in the last 24 hours, and 7% and 14%, respectively, in the last hour of life. Six American studies and one Danish study published between 1991-1999 reported on patients dying suddenly: incidences were 41% and 68% in the last 24 hours and 22-66% in the last hour. Four American studies and two Swedish studies published between 2004-2015 did not distinguish the cause of death: incidences were 17-32% in the last month, 3-32% in the last 24 hours, and 8% and 31% in the last hour of life. Three American studies published between 2004-2011 reported that shocks in dying patients are painful and distressing for patients, and distressing for relatives and professional caregivers.

CONCLUSION

If the implantable cardioverter defibrillator is not deactivated in a timely manner, a potentially significant proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients experience painful and distressing shocks in their last phase of life.

New Dimensions in Palliative Care Cardiology

The landscape of patient care at the beginning of the 19th century was dramatically different than it is today. With few good treatment options, illness courses were generally brief. Near the end of life, patients were attended to by spiritual advisors, not health care professionals. Death typically occurred at home, surrounded by friends and family. Moving to the present time, decades of medical advances have significantly improved life expectancy. Cardiology has particularly benefited from many of these advances. Cardiac patients are initiated on optimal medication regimens. As disease burdens progress, interventions such as implantable defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization pacing systems become options for many patients. With further clinical deterioration, select patients might be candidates for ventricular assist devices and heart transplants. These advances have unquestionably improved the prognosis with advanced cardiovascular illnesses. However, they have also changed patient and family attitudes about death and dying, to the point where we have effectively "medicalized our mortality." The importance of introducing palliative care to the cardiac patient population is now well recognized, with the major cardiovascular societies incorporating palliative care principles into their guideline and consensus statement documents. However, despite this recognition, few cardiac patients get access to palliative care and other resources such as hospice. In this article the existing literature on this topic is reviewed and opportunities for developing and fostering a more collaborative relationship between the disciplines of cardiology and palliative care are discussed.

Challenges in clarifying goals of care in patients with advanced heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with advanced heart failure require communication about goals of care, yet many challenges exist, leaving it suboptimal. High mortality rates and advances in the use of life-sustaining technology further complicate communication and underscore the urgency to understand and address these challenges. This review highlights current research with a view to informing future research and practice to improve goals of care communication.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinicians view patient and family barriers as more impactful than clinician and system factors in impeding goals of care discussions. Knowledge gaps about life-sustaining technology challenge timely goals of care discussions. Complex, nurse-led interventions that activate patient, clinician and care systems and video-decision aids about life-sustaining technology may reduce barriers and facilitate goals of care communication.

SUMMARY

Clinicians require relational skills in facilitating goals of care communication with diverse patients and families with heart failure knowledge gaps, who may be experiencing stress and discord. Future research should explore the dynamics of goals of care communication in real-time from patient, family and clinician perspectives, to inform development of upstream and complex interventions that optimize communication. Further testing of interventions is needed in and across community and hospital settings.

Palliative Care in Heart Failure: What Triggers Specialist Consultation?

Heart failure (HF) continues to cause substantial death and suffering despite the availability of numerous medical, surgical, and technological therapeutic advancements. As a patient-centered holistic discipline focused on improving quality of life and decreasing anguish, palliative care (PC) has a crucial role in the care of HF patients that has been acknowledged by multiple international guidelines. PC can be provided by all members of the HF care team, including but not limited to practitioners with specialty PC training. Unfortunately, despite recommendations to routinely include PC techniques and providers in the care of HF patients, use of general PC strategies as well as expert PC consultation is limited by a dearth of evidence-based interventions in the HF population and knowledge as to when to initiate these interventions, uncertainty regarding patient desires, prognosis, and the respective roles of each member of the care team, and a general shortage of specialist PC providers. This review seeks to provide guidance as to when to employ the limited resource of specialist PC practitioners, in combination with services from other members of the care team, to best tend to HF patients as their disease progresses and eventually overcomes.

Patient-centred care of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and risk of sudden cardiac death: What do the 2015 European Society of Cardiology guidelines add?

Nurses and allied professionals are at the forefront of care delivery in patients with arrythmogenic risk and have a responsibility to deliver care that is focused on their individual needs. The 2015 European Society of Cardiology guideline on prevention of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death heralds a step-change in patient and family focus and interdisciplinary involvement. This development reflects a recognition within the European Society of Cardiology that chronic care of patients with cardiovascular conditions can be improved by involving all stakeholders, making use of multidisciplinary interventions, and placing the patient at the centre of the care process. In this article, taskforce contributors discuss the latest evidence and highlight some of the most pertinent issues for nurses involved in patient-centred care of patients and families with ventricular arrhythmias and/or risk of sudden death.

“There are days I wish it wasn’t there, and there’s days I realize I’m lucky”: A qualitative study of psychological sequelae to the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a treatment for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

Objectives

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy caused by a TMEM43 p.S358L mutation is a fully penetrant autosomal dominant cause of sudden cardiac death where prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality by returning lethal cardiac rhythms to normal. This qualitative study assessed the psychological ramifications of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator on recipients, their spouses and their mutation negative siblings.

Design

Qualitative interview study.

Participants

Twenty-one individuals (nine mutation positive, eight mutation negative and four spouses) from 15 families completed semi-structured interviews.

Results

No theoretical assumptions about the data were made: inductive sub-coding was accomplished with the constant comparison method and cohesive themes across all respondent interviews were determined. All interviewees had a family history of sudden cardiac death and appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in themselves or family members. Average length of time with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator was 10 years. Major themes included: (1) acceptance and gratitude, (2) grudging acceptance, (3) psychological effects (on emotional and psychological well-being; functioning of the broader family unit; and relationships), and (4) practical concerns (on clothes, travel, loss of driving licence and the effects of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge). These affected all family members, regardless of mutation status.

Conclusions

Despite the survival advantage of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy, the intervention carries psychological and practical burdens for family members from kindreds manifesting p.S358L TMEM43 ARVC that does not appear to dissipate with time. A move towards integrating psychology services with the cardiac genetics clinic for the extended family may provide benefit.

Hospice in heart failure: why, when, and what then?

Hospice is a model of care for patients nearing the end of their lives that emphasizes symptom management, quality of life (QOL), and support of the patient and caregiving family through the death of the patient and the family's bereavement. It is associated with high patient and caregiver satisfaction and appears to not shorten lifespan for appropriately referred patients. Patients with advanced heart failure are being referred to hospice care more often than in the past, but the majority of deaths occur without this benefit. Hospice care in the USA is defined by the Medicare Hospice Benefit and associated regulations. Hospice is appropriate for patients with an expected survival prognosis of 6 months or less, and multiple predictive factors and tools are available to assist in prognostication. Management of symptoms and specific drug therapy options are discussed. For many patients, deactivation of electronic cardiac devices is appropriate when the goals of care are comfort and QOL. Ongoing collaboration of the referring physician with the hospice agency and staff offers opportunities for seamless and quality care.