Perspectives on withdrawing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies at end of life: results of a survey of medical and legal professionals and patients

Patients' Perspective on Termination of Pacemaker Therapy-A Cross-Sectional Anonymous Survey among Patients Carrying a Pacemaker in Germany

OBJECTIVE

To determine the opinions of patients regarding the withdrawal of pacemaker therapy.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional anonymous questionnaire was administered to patients visiting an outpatient cardiologic clinic for routine follow-up visits of pacemaker therapy or patients carrying a pacemaker admitted to a hospital between 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients answered the questionnaire. A total of 56% of the participants were male. The mean age was 81 years. The majority of respondents were very comfortable with their PM and felt well informed, with one exception: more than half of respondents were missing information on withdrawal of pacemaker therapy. Almost two-thirds wanted to decide for themselves if their pacemaker therapy was withdrawn regardless of whether they were ill or healthy. Almost 60% of patients would like the pacemaker to be turned off when dying. Women expressed this wish significantly more often than men.

CONCLUSION

Our survey shows that patients prefer to be informed on issues regarding the withdrawal of pacemakers as early as preimplantation. Also, patients would like to be involved in decisions that have to be made at the end of life, including decisions on withdrawal. Offers of conversations about this important issue should include information on special features of the patient's pacemaker, e.g., the absence or presence of pacemaker dependency. Knowledge about the pacemaker's functionality may prevent distress among individuals nearing their end of life when, for example, under the false impression that timely deactivation may allow for a more peaceful death.

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.

Moral Distress at the End of a Life: When Family and Clinicians Do Not Agree on Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Deactivation

A 63-year-old man with end-stage ischemic cardiomyopathy presented with incessant ventricular tachycardia. He had been hospitalized multiple times in the past year for severe heart failure. As he approached end of life and was regularly receiving defibrillator shocks, his care team recommended deactivation of his implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. However, his family did not wish to allow deactivation, reporting a religious obligation to prolong his life, regardless of the risk of suffering. The patient was unable to adequately participate in the decision-making process. An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator can serve to avoid sudden death but may lead to a prolonged death from heart failure. This possibility forces the examination of values regarding prolongation of life, sometimes producing disagreement among stakeholders. Although ethical consensus holds that defibrillator deactivation is legal and ethical, disagreements about life prolongation may complicate decision making. The ethical, technical, and medical complexity involved in this case speaks to the need for clear, prospective communication involving the patient, the patient's family, and members of the care team.

Practical and ethical considerations in the management of pacemaker and implantable cardiac defibrillator devices in terminally ill patients

More than 4.5 million people worldwide live with an implanted pacemaker, including >3 million in the USA alone. Also, >0.8 million people in the USA have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Knowing the principles of managing these devices towards the end of life is important, as the interruption of their function may have serious consequences. This article provides health care providers who are not specialized in cardiac electrophysiology with an introduction to the general principles of management of pacemakers or ICD devices towards the end of life, with a suggested algorithm for approaching this process. Also discussed are pertinent ethical and practical considerations in deciding on and implementing a management strategy for these devices during terminal illnesses.

Resisting the hospice narrative in pursuit of quality of life

The overall hospice philosophy is to provide care that enhances a dying person’s quality of life. Most individual’s quality of life is improved when they embrace hospice eligibility and reimbursement requirements, such as stopping burdensome and ineffective curative treatment, addressing pain and other symptoms, and seeking avenues for closure. However, this institutionalized prescription for enhancing quality of life at the end of life does not work for all patients. This article considers what happens when patients’ personal definitions of quality of life at the end of life resist the prevailing narrative of appropriate hospice care. Using a series of examples from more than 600 hours of participant observation, our findings reveal narratives of resistance that fall into three themes: i) patients and/or family members who deny the imminence of death despite an admission to hospice; ii) patients who request treatments usually defined as curative; and iii) patients who resist the organizational constraints imposed by the institutionalization of the hospice model of care. Analysis of these themes illustrates the subjective nature of quality of life at the end of life and the pressures of standardization that may accompany the growth and maturity of the hospice industry in the United States.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and End-of-Life Care: An Australian Perspective

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (pacemakers and defibrillators) are increasingly common in modern cardiology practice, and health professionals from a variety of specialties will encounter patients with such devices on a frequent basis. This article will focus on the subset of patients who may request, or be appropriate for, device deactivation and discuss the issues surrounding end-of-life decisions, along with the ethical and legal implications of device deactivation.

Hospice Use Following Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Older Patients: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

BACKGROUND

Older recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are at increased risk for short-term mortality in comparison with younger patients. Although hospice use is common among decedents aged >65, its use among older ICD recipients is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Medicare patients aged >65 matched to data in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry - ICD Registry from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010 were eligible for analysis (N=194 969). The proportion of ICD recipients enrolled in hospice, cumulative incidence of hospice admission, and factors associated with time to hospice enrollment were evaluated. Five years after device implantation, 50.9% of patients were either deceased or in hospice. Among decedents, 36.8% received hospice services. The cumulative incidence of hospice enrollment, accounting for the competing risk of death, was 4.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6%-4.8%) within 1 year and 21.3% (95% CI, 20.7%-21.8%) at 5 years. Factors most strongly associated with shorter time to hospice enrollment were older age (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.73-1.81), class IV heart failure (versus class I; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.66-1.94); ejection fraction <20 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.67), and greater hospice use among decedents in the patients' health referral region.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of older patients dying with ICDs receive hospice care. Five years after implantation, half of older ICD recipients are either dead or in hospice. Hospice providers should be prepared for ICD patients, whose clinical trajectories and broader palliative care needs require greater focus.

Considerations in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices at End of Life

Since the introduction of implantable cardiac pacemakers in 1958 and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in 1980, these devices have been proven to save and prolong lives. Pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy are deemed life-sustaining therapies. Despite these life-saving technologies, all patients ultimately will reach the end of their lives from either their heart disease or development of a terminal illness. Clinicians may be faced with patient and family requests to withdraw these life-sustaining therapies. The purpose of this article is to educate clinicians about the legal and ethical principles that underlie withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies such as device deactivation and to highlight the importance of proactive communication with patients and families in these situations.

Ethical considerations for turning off pacemakers and defibrillators

The 2010 guidelines regarding management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) conclude that patient requests to deactivate these devices at the end of life should be honored. Nevertheless, many clinicians and patients report feeling uncomfortable discontinuing such therapies, particularly pacemakers. If the principles of clinical ethics are followed, turning off CIEDs at the end of life is morally permissible. Clinicians managing CIEDs should discuss the option of deactivation with the patient at the time of implantation and be prepared to reopen the question as warranted by the patient's clinical course and respect for the patient's authentic values.

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.

Defibrillator Deactivation against a Patient's Wishes: Perspectives of Electrophysiology Practitioners

BACKGROUND

Unilateral do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders (against patient/family wishes) have been ethically justified in cases of medical futility. We investigated whether electrophysiology practitioners believe medical futility justifies unilateral implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Email invitations to take an online survey were sent to 1,894 electrophysiology practitioners. A total of 384 responses were collected (response rate 20.6%). Though the sample included respondents from Europe, Asia, Australia, South America, and Africa, the majority were from North America (78%), were academically affiliated (64%), and practiced in an urban setting (67.8%). Deactivation of ICD shock function in agreement with patient wishes and a preexisting DNR were not considered physician-assisted suicide (93.2%, 358/384). However, a majority of the sample responded that it was not ethical/moral for doctors to deactivate ICDs against patients' wishes (77.1%, 296/384) or against family/surrogates' wishes (72.4%, 278/384), even in the context of medical futility. A majority indicated that deactivating ICD shock function is not ethically/morally different than withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation or external defibrillation in a code (72.7%, 277/381), but was different than deactivating pacing in a pacemaker-dependent patient (82.8%, 318/384). In the classification of interventions, a plurality (43.0%, 165/383) regarded ICDs to be unlike any other intervention. Concerning pacemakers, 50% (191/382) considered them to be like dialysis (a therapy that keeps patients alive).

CONCLUSIONS

This international sample of electrophysiology practitioners considered ICD and pacemaker deactivation to be ethically distinct. While ICD deactivation was considered appropriate in the setting of patient/family agreement, unilateral deactivation was not.

Ethical challenges of deactivation of cardiac devices in advanced heart failure

More than 23 million adults worldwide have heart failure (HF). Although survival after heart failure diagnosis has improved over time, mortality from heart failure remains high. At the end of life, the chronic HF patient often becomes increasingly symptomatic, and may have other life-limiting comorbidities as well. Multiple trials have shown a clear mortality benefit with the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmia. However, patients who have an ICD may be denied the chance of a sudden cardiac death, and instead are committed to a slower terminal decline, with frequent DC shocks that can be painful and decrease the quality of life, greatly contributing to their distress and that of their families during this period. While patients with ICDs are routinely counseled with regard to the benefits of ICDs, they have a poor understanding of the options for device deactivation and related ethical and legal implications. Deactivating an ICD or not performing a generator change is both legal and ethical, and is supported by guidelines from both sides of the Atlantic. Patient autonomy is paramount, and no patient is committed to any therapy that they no longer wish to receive. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were initially used as bridge in patients awaiting heart transplantation, but they are currently implanted as destination therapy (DT) in patients with end-stage heart failure who have failed to respond to optimal medical therapy and who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. The decision-making process for initiation and deactivation of LVAD is becoming more and more ethically and clinically challenging, particularly for elderly patients.

Features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiac device deactivation

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about patients who undergo cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective review of medical records of 150 patients at a tertiary academic medical center (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). EXPOSURE Cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Demographic and clinical data and information regarding advance directives, ethics consultations, palliative medicine consultations, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivations.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients (median age, 79 years; 67% were male), 149 (99%) had poor or terminal prognoses. Overall, 118 patients (79%) underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only, and 32 (21%) underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (6 patients [4%] were pacemaker-dependent). Half of the deactivation requests (51%) were made by surrogates. A majority of deactivations (55%) were carried out by nurses. Although 85 patients (57%) had advance directives, only 1 mentioned the device in the directive. Ethics consultations occurred in 3 patients (2%) and palliative medicine consultations in 64 (43%). The proportions of patients who died within 1 month of device deactivation were similar for those who underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only and those who underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (85% vs 94%; P = .37).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most requests for cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation were for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-delivered tachycardia therapies only. Many of these requests were made by surrogates. Advance directives executed by patients with these devices rarely addressed device management. Regardless of device therapy, most patients died shortly after device deactivation. Hence, a device deactivation decision may reflect the seriousness of a given patient's underlying illness. Patients with devices should engage in advance care planning to ensure that future care is consistent with their preferences.

Development and evaluation of the EOL-ICDQ as a measure of experiences, attitudes and knowledge in end-of-life in patients living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Due to extended indications and resynchronization therapy, many implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients will experience progressive co-morbid conditions and will be more likely to die of causes other than cardiac death. It is therefore important to elucidate the ICD patients' preferences when nearing end-of-life. Instead of avoiding the subject of end-of-life, a validated questionnaire may be helpful to explore patients' experiences and attitudes about end-of-life concerns and to assess knowledge of the function of the ICD in end-of-life. Validated instruments assessing patients' perspective concerning end-of-life issues are scarce.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate respondent satisfaction and measurement properties of the 'Experiences, Attitudes and Knowledge of End-of-Life Issues in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients' Questionnaire' (EOL-ICDQ).

METHODS

The instrument was tested for validity, respondent satisfaction, and for homogeneity and stability in the Swedish language. An English version of the EOL-ICDQ was validated, but has not yet been pilot tested.

RESULTS

The final instrument contained three domains, which were clustered into 39 items measuring: experiences (10 items), attitudes (18 items), and knowledge (11 items) of end-of-life concerns in ICD patients. In addition, the questionnaire also contained items on socio-demographic background (six items) and ICD-specific background (eight items). The validity and reliability properties were considered sufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The EOL-ICDQ has the potential to be used in clinical practice and future research. Further studies are needed using this instrument in an Anglo-Saxon context with a sample of English-speaking ICD recipients.

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.

An Ethical Analysis of Withdrawal of Therapy in Patients with Implantable Cardiac Electronic Devices: Application of a Novel Decision Algorithm

Patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), which include pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), may request deactivation of their devices as they approach the end of life. The Heart Rhythm Society (2010) has stated that "ethically, and legally, there are no differences between refusing CIED therapy and requesting withdrawal of CIED therapy." On the basis of the principle that there is no ethical distinction between withholding and withdrawing treatment, this professional organization has suggested that both the antibradycardia and antitachycardia features of these devices may be disabled at the patient's request. We argue that disabling ICD shocks is analogs to a do-not-resuscitate order and is ethically permissible whereas withdrawing pacing from a pacemaker-dependent patient is an act of intentionally hastening death and not morally licit.

End-of-life care in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a MADIT-II substudy

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-delivered shocks can cause substantial distress, warranting consideration of ICD deactivation at end of life. This study was designed to describe the patterns of end-of-life management in patients with ICDs.

METHODS

There was a retrospective chart review of 98 patients who died in the ICD arm of multicenter automated defibrillator implantation trial II (MADIT II). The pattern of ICD management and the frequency of ICD shocks delivered before death were reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified three groups: Group 1 consisting of individuals who underwent ICD, deactivation, 15 (15%); Group 2 patients without ICD deactivation who were in hospice or with "do not resuscitate" (DNR) orders, 36 (37%); and Group 3 patients without ICD deactivation who were not in hospice care and did not have DNR orders, 47 (48%). Out of 15 deactivations, 11 (73%) occurred in the week before death. None of the patients in Group 1 received an ICD shock in the 24-hour period before death. However, one (3%) patient from Group 2 and nine (19%) patients from Group 3 had shocks during the 24 hours before death (P = 0.03). In the last week before death, three (20%), two (6%), and six (13%) patients received ICD shocks in the three groups, respectively (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with terminal conditions who are at risk for imminent death, active management of the patient's ICD, including timely discussions regarding ICD deactivation, may reduce the risk of ICD shocks during the end of life.

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.

Life-saving devices reach the end of life with heart failure

The new millennium has seen a dramatic increase in use of potentially life-prolonging devices such as implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and ventricular assist devices (VADs) among patients with advanced heart failure. Most patients who receive these devices will have them in place when they die. Clinicians who care for these patients must commit through the entire course of therapy, including the end-of-life. Discussions about device deactivation should be the standard of care and this discussion should take place prior to implantation, during annual heart failure reviews, after major milestones, and when the end-of-life appears to be approaching. Turning off ICDs and turning off VADs in response to patient or proxy requests are legally the same although they may be perceived differently, as disconnection of the VAD is more likely to cause immediate death. This article discusses the evidence around device deactivation at the end-of-life and offers suggestions for improvement.

Pacemaker deactivation: withdrawal of support or active ending of life?

In spite of ethical analyses assimilating the palliative deactivation of pacemakers to commonly accepted withdrawings of life-sustaining therapy, many clinicians remain ethically uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation at the end of life. Various reasons have been posited for this discomfort. Some cardiologists have suggested that reluctance to deactivate pacemakers may stem from a sense that the pacemaker has become part of the patient's "self." The authors suggest that Daniel Sulmasy is correct to contend that any such identification of the pacemaker is misguided. The authors argue that clinicians uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation are nevertheless correct to see it as incompatible with the traditional medical ethics of withdrawal of support. Traditional medical ethics is presently taken by many to sanction pacemaker deactivation when such deactivation honors the patient's right to refuse treatment. The authors suggest that the right to refuse treatment applies to treatments involving ongoing physician agency. This right cannot underwrite patient demands that physicians reverse the effects of treatments previously administered, in which ongoing physician agency is no longer implicated. The permanently indwelling pacemaker is best seen as such a treatment. As such, its deactivation in the pacemaker-dependent patient is best seen not as withdrawal of support but as active ending of life. That being the case, clinicians adhering to the usual ethical analysis of withdrawal of support are correct to be uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation at the end of life.

Deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), are the most effective treatment for life-threatening arrhythmias. Patients or their surrogates may request device deactivation to avoid prolongation of the dying process or in other settings, such as after device-related complications or with changes in health care goals. Despite published guidelines outlining theoretical and practical aspects of this common clinical scenario, significant uncertainty remains for both patients and health care providers regarding the ethical and legal status of CIED deactivation. This review outlines the ethical and legal principles supporting CIED deactivation, centered upon patient autonomy and authority over their own medical treatment. The empirical literature describing stakeholder views and experiences surrounding CIED deactivation is described, along with implications of these studies for future research surrounding the care of patients with CIEDs.

The Ethics of Deactivating a Pacemaker in a Pacing-Dependent Patient

The decision to deactivate a pacemaker in a pacing-dependent patient is troubling for some health professionals who may regard such interventions as hastening death and therefore ethically impermissible. This may be especially concerning in situations where a patient is unable to clearly state what their preferences may be and the decision—were it to be made—will almost certainly result in the patient’s immediate death. In this discussion, we reflect on some of the ethical aspects that arise when JP, a 75-year-old woman who is pacing dependent, suffers a significant brain injury, and the family request that her pacemaker be deactivated. Taking into account the clinical reality of her situation, the united wishes and loving concern of her husband and family, and their substituted judgment regarding her likely preferences, we claim that the decision to deactivate her pacemaker was ethically sound.

The deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: medical, ethical, practical, and legal considerations

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) cannot prevent death from progressive heart failure or non-cardiac disease. Patients with ICDs may receive defibrillation therapy from their devices in the last days of their lives, when such therapy does not accord with the goal of palliative treatment, but rather lowers these patients' quality of life and compromises their dignity.

METHODS

We present a case report and a selective review of pertinent literature retrieved by a PubMed search, including two up-to-date consensus documents.

RESULTS

One-third to two-thirds of all ICD patients receive defibrillation therapy in the final days of their lives. Patients and their physicians rarely discuss deactivating the ICD. The ethical aspects of such decisions need to be considered. As a practical matter, it is possible to deactivate certain types of electrotherapy selectively, while leaving others active. There are logistical considerations as well.

CONCLUSION

Automatic defibrillation therapy in a terminally ill patient with an ICD is painful and distressing, serves no medical purpose, and should be avoided. This issue should be discussed with ICD patients and their families. Institutions caring for terminally ill patients, as well as cardiology units where ICD patients are treated, should develop ethically and legally well-founded protocols for dealing with the question 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.

Deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in terminal illness and end of life care

Cardiology professional societies have recommended that patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices complete advance directives (ADs). However, physicians rarely discuss end of life handling of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and standard AD forms do not address the presence of ICDs. We conducted a telephone survey of 278 patients with an ICD from a large, academic hospital. The average period since implantation was 5.15 years. More than 1/3 (38%) had been shocked, with a mean of 4.69 shocks. More than 1/2 had executed an AD, but only 3 had included a plan for their ICD. Most subjects (86%) had never considered what to do with their ICD if they had a serious illness and were unlikely to survive. When asked about ICD deactivation in an end of life situation, 42% said it would depend, 28% favored deactivation, and 11% would not deactivate. One quarter (26%) thought ICD deactivation was a form of assisted suicide, 22% thought a do not resuscitate order did not mean that the ICD should be deactivated, and 46% responded that the ICD should not be automatically deactivated in hospice. The answers did not correlate with any demographic factors. Almost all (95%) agreed that patients should have the opportunity to execute an AD that directs handing of an ICD. When asked who should be responsible for discussing this device for an AD, 31% said electrophysiologists, 45% said general cardiologists, and 14% said primary care physicians. In conclusion, the results of the present study highlight the lack of consensus among patients with an ICD on the issue of deactivation at the end of a patient's life. These findings suggest cardiologists should discuss end of life care and device deactivation with their patients with an ICD.

"I felt like the angel of death": role conflicts and moral distress among allied professionals employed by the US cardiovascular implantable electronic device industry

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify themes associated with role conflicts and moral distress experienced by cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) industry-employed allied professionals (IEAPs) in the clinical setting.

METHODS

Focus groups were used to elicit perspectives from IEAPs who had deactivated a CIED.

RESULTS

Seventeen IEAPs (five women) reported increased clinical presence and work-related role conflicts and moral distress along several themes: (1) relationships with patients, (2) relationships with clinicians, (3) role ambiguity, (4) customer service to clinicians, and (5) CIED deactivation. Patients often misperceived IEAPs as physicians or nurses. Many physicians expected IEAPs to perform clinical duties. Customer service obligations exacerbated IEAP role conflicts and moral distress because of dual agency. IEAPs commonly received and carried out requests to deactivate CIEDs; doing so, however, generated considerable distress-particularly deactivations of pacemakers in pacemaker-dependent patients. Several described themselves as "angels of death." IEAPs had recommendations for mitigating role conflicts and moral distress, including improving the deactivation process.

CONCLUSIONS

IEAPs experienced role conflicts and moral distress regarding their activities in the clinical setting and customer service obligations. Health care institutions should develop and enforce clear boundaries between IEAPs and clinicians in the clinical setting. Clinicians and IEAPs should adhere to these boundaries.