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

The Role of Palliative Care in Cardiovascular Disease

The American Heart Association has recommended that palliative care be integrated into the care of all patients with advanced cardiac illnesses. Notwithstanding, the number of patients receiving specialist palliative intervention worldwide remains extremely small. This review examines the nature of palliative care and what is known about its delivery to patients with cardiac illness. Most of the published literature on the subject concern advanced heart failure; however, some data also exist regarding patients with heart transplantation, pulmonary hypertension, valvular disease, congenital heart disease, indwelling devices, mechanical circulatory support, and advanced coronary disease. In addition, outcome data, certification requirements, workforce challenges, barriers to implementation, and a potential caveat about palliative care will also be examined. Further work is required regarding appropriate means of implementation, quality control, and timing of intervention.

Patients' Information Needs Related to a Monitoring Implant for Heart Failure: Co-designed Study Based on Affect Stories

BACKGROUND

RealWorld4Clinic is a European consortium that is currently developing an implantable monitoring device for acute heart failure prevention.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the main issues and information needs related to this new cardiac implant from the patients' perspective.

METHODS

A total of 3 patient collaborators were recruited to help us design the study. During 4 remotely held meetings (each lasting for 2 hours), we defined the main questions and hypotheses together. Next, 26 additional interviews were conducted remotely to test these hypotheses. During both phases, we used affect stories, which are life narratives focusing on affect and the relationship between patients and the care ecosystem, to highlight the main social issues that should be addressed by the research according to the patients.

RESULTS

Context of diagnosis, age, and severity of illness strongly influence patient experience. However, these variables do not seem to influence the choice regarding being implanted, which relies mostly on the individual patient's trust in their physicians. It seems that the major cause of anxiety for the patient is not the implant but the disease itself, although some people may initially be concerned over the idea of becoming a cyborg. Remote monitoring of cardiac implants should draw on existing remote disease management programs focusing on a long-term relationship between the patient and their medical team.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-design with affect stories is a useful method for quickly identifying the main social issues related to information about a new health technology.

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.

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.

Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: The views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Palliative care can improve outcomes for patients with advanced chronic heart failure and their families, but timely recognition of palliative care needs remains challenging.

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify characteristics of a tool to assess palliative care needs in chronic heart failure that are needed for successful implementation, according to patients, their family and healthcare professionals in The Netherlands.

METHODS

Explorative qualitative study, part of the project 'Identification of patients with HeARt failure with PC needs' (I-HARP), focus groups and individual interviews were held with healthcare professionals, patients with chronic heart failure, and family members. Data were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

A total of 13 patients, 10 family members and 26 healthcare professionals participated. Direct-content analysis revealed desired tool characteristics for successful implementation in four constructs: relative advantage, adaptability, complexity, and design quality and packaging. Healthcare professionals indicated that a tool should increase awareness, understanding and knowledge concerning palliative care needs. A tool needs to: be adaptable to different disease stages, facilitate early identification of palliative care needs and ease open conversations about palliative care. The complexity of chronic heart failure should be considered in a personalized approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed the characteristics of a tool for timely identification of palliative care needs in chronic heart failure needed for successful implementation. The next steps will be to define the content of the tool, followed by development of a preliminary version and iterative testing of this version by the different stakeholders.

Clinical ethics report on the resuscitation of a patient in the emergency department with an uncertain resuscitation status and an implantable cardiac defibrillator

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of a patient with an uncertain resuscitation status, and a discharging implantable cardiac defibrillator, presents a significant ethical challenge to healthcare professionals in the emergency department. Presently, no literature discusses these challenges or their implications for ethical healthcare delivery. This report will discuss the issues that arose during the management of such a case and attempt to raise awareness among healthcare professionals to ensure better preparation for similar situations.

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 defibrillators at the end of life: future perspectives on clinical practice

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is effective in terminating life-threatening arrhythmias. However, in the last phase of life, ICD shocks may no longer be appropriate. Guidelines recommend timely discussion with the patient regarding deactivation of the shock function of the ICD. However, research shows that such conversations are scarce, and some patients experience avoidable and distressful shocks in the final days of life. Barriers such as physicians’ lack of time, difficulties in finding the right time to discuss ICD deactivation, patients’ reluctance to discuss the topic, and the fragmentation of care, which obscures responsibilities, prevent healthcare professionals from discussing this topic with the patient. In this point-of-view article, we argue that healthcare professionals who are involved in the care for ICD patients should be better educated on how to communicate with patients about ICD deactivation and the end of life. Optimal communication is needed to reduce the number of patients experiencing inappropriate and painful shocks in the terminal stage of their lives.

Improving implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation discussions in admitted patients made DNR and comfort care

Background

Unintended shocks from implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are often distressing to patients and family members, particularly at the end of life. Unfortunately, a large proportion of ICDs remain active at the time of death among do not resuscitate (DNR) and comfort care patients.

Methods

We designed standardised teaching sessions for providers and implemented a novel decision tool in the electronic medical record (EMR) to improve the frequency of discussions surrounding ICD deactivation over a 6-month period. The intended population was patients on inpatient medicine and cardiology services made DNR and/or comfort care. These rates were compared with retrospective data from 6 months prior to our interventions.

Results

After our interventions, the rates of discussions regarding deactivation of ICDs improved from 50% to 93% in comfort care patients and from 32% to 70% in DNR patients. The rates of deactivated ICDs improved from 45% to 73% in comfort care patients and from 29% to 40% in DNR patients.

Conclusion

Standardised education of healthcare providers and decision support tools and reminders in the EMR system are effective ways to increase awareness, discussion and deactivation of ICDs in comfort care and DNR patients.

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.

Palliative care for people living with heart failure: European Association for Palliative Care Task Force expert position statement

Contrary to common perception, modern palliative care (PC) is applicable to all people with an incurable disease, not only cancer. PC is appropriate at every stage of disease progression, when PC needs emerge. These needs can be of physical, emotional, social, or spiritual nature. This document encourages the use of validated assessment tools to recognize such needs and ascertain efficacy of management. PC interventions should be provided alongside cardiologic management. Treating breathlessness is more effective, when cardiologic management is supported by PC interventions. Treating other symptoms like pain or depression requires predominantly PC interventions. Advance Care Planning aims to ensure that the future treatment and care the person receives is concordant with their personal values and goals, even after losing decision-making capacity. It should include also disease specific aspects, such as modification of implantable device activity at the end of life. The Whole Person Care concept describes the inseparability of the physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the human being. Addressing psychological and spiritual needs, together with medical treatment, maintains personal integrity and promotes emotional healing. Most PC concerns can be addressed by the usual care team, supported by a PC specialist if needed. During dying, the persons’ needs may change dynamically and intensive PC is often required. Following the death of a person, bereavement services benefit loved ones. The authors conclude that the inclusion of PC within the regular clinical framework for people with heart failure results in a substantial improvement in quality of life as well as comfort and dignity whilst dying.

Deactivation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients nearing end of life : Reality or only recommendation?

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend considering deactivation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing death. We evaluated the implementation of this recommendation in unselected deceased individuals with CIEDs.

METHODS

Over a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for CIEDs and these were interrogated in situ. Pacing rate, pacing mode, and lead output were documented as well as patient data including location and time of death. In implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), tachycardia therapy adjustment and occurrence of shocks 24 h prior to death were also recorded.

RESULTS

We examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs. Of these subjects, 125 (100%) pacemakers (PMs) and 27 (96.4%) ICDs were eligible for analysis. Death in persons with ICDs occurred most frequently in hospital (55.6%), while this was less frequently the case for individuals with PMs (43.2%). Furthermore, 33.3% of subjects with ICDs and 18.5% with PMs died in palliative care units (PCU). Shock therapies were switched off in three (60%) individuals with ICDs who died in the PCU, whereas antibradycardia therapy was not withdrawn in any PM patient in the PCU. Therapy withdrawal occurred in two patients with PMs (1.3%) who died in hospital. Patients with PMs had high ventricular pacing rates at the last interrogation (69 ± 36.0%) and often suffered atrioventricular block (39.2%). Six (25%) of the 24 active ICDs presented shocks near the time of death.

CONCLUSION

Many CIED patients died in hospital; nonetheless, in practice, CIED deactivation near death is rarely performed and might be less feasible in subjects with PMs. However, there is still a need to consider deactivation, especially in individuals with ICDs, as one fourth of them received at least one shock within 24 h prior to death.

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.