Managing cardiac devices near the end of life: a survey of hospice and palliative care providers

End-Stage/Advanced Heart Failure: Geriatric Palliative Care Considerations

Heart failure remains a condition with high morbidity and mortality affecting 23 million people globally with a cost burden equivalent to 5.4% of the total health care budget in the United States. These costs include repeated hospitalizations as the disease advances and care that may not align with individual wishes and values. The coincidence of comorbid conditions with advanced heart failure poses significant challenges in the geriatric population. Advance care planning, medication education, and minimizing polypharmacy are primary palliative opportunities leading to specialist palliative care such as symptom management at end of life and timing of referral to hospice.

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.

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.

Palliative Care Consultation and Associated End-of-Life Care After Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Deactivation

The presence of cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators complicates making end-of-life (EOL) medical decisions. Palliative care/medicine consultation (PCMC) may benefit patients and primary providers, but data are lacking. We retrospectively reviewed 150 charts of patients who underwent device deactivation at our tertiary care center (between November 1, 2008, and September 1, 2012), assessing for PCMC and outcomes. Overall, 42% of patients received a PCMC, and 68% of those PCMCs specifically addressed device deactivation. Median survival following deactivation was 2 days, with 42% of deaths occurring within 1 day of deactivation. There was no difference in survival between the groups. The EOL care for patients with implanted cardiac devices is complex, but PCMC may assist with symptom management and clarification of goals of care for such patients.

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.

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.

ICD Deactivation

Implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an essential part of the management for patients at risk for life threatening arrhythmias. Despite new technologies, all patients ultimately will reach the end of their lives, either because of underlying cardiac disease or another terminal illness. Having an ICD at the end of life may deny a patient the chance of sudden cardiac death and result in a slower terminal disease and pain and anxiety due to shocks from their device. The purpose of this article is to present a focused literature review on the barriers surrounding deactivation of ICDs and to summarize the recommendations of the Heart Rhythm Society Consensus Statement on the management of ICDs in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy.

[Treating ICD patients at the end of their lives: attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of doctors and patients. A critical literature analysis]

BACKGROUND

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in the therapy of malign heart rhythm abnormalities. However, the ethical dilemma of harming a dying patient has received little attention. We studied the current state of knowledge and behavior of physicians and the subjective needs of ICD patients with respect to end-of-life issues.

METHODS

A literature search of articles published between 8/2010 and 3/2011 in PubMed resulted in the identification of 32 reports, of which 25 met selection criteria.

RESULTS

Practically no clinical institution (96% in Europe) offers routine counseling of ICD patients on end-of-life issues. In only about 25% of cases do doctors initiate a discussion on this issue with the ICD patient, of which the majority takes place during the final hours of the patient's life. Knowledge of legal aspects of ICD deactivation is insufficient in about 50% of physicians. Many physicians underestimate the impact of ICD shocks and often have unrealistic expectations about the patient's knowledge on technical aspects of the ICD device. The majority of patients are reluctant to address this topic and prefer to rely on the decision of their attending physician.

CONCLUSION

Despite insufficient empirical data, findings point to a low willingness of ICD patients to confront the end-of-life issue and prefer decisions to be made by their physician. Substantial knowledge gaps of physicians may cause barriers in considering the option of deactivating the ICD.

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.