Ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of ventricular assist devices in supporting patients with end-stage organ dysfunction

How New Support Devices Change Critical Care Delivery

Mechanical support devices are used to support failing cardiac, respiratory, or both systems. Since Gibbon developed the cardiopulmonary bypass in 1953, collaborative efforts by medical centers, bioengineers, industry, and the National Institutes of Health have led to development of mechanical devices to support heart, lung, or both. These devices are used as a temporary or long-term measures for acute collapse of circulatory system and/or respiratory failure. Patients are managed on these support devices as a bridge to recovery, bridge to long term devices, or bridge to transplant. The progress in development of these devices has improved mortality and quality of life in select groups of patients. Care of these patients requires a multidisciplinary team approach, which includes cardiac surgeons, critical care physicians, cardiologists, pulmonologists, nursing staff, and perfusionists. Using a team approach improves outcomes in these patients.

Matters to address prior to introducing new life support technology in Japan: three serious ethical concerns related to the use of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy and suggested policies to deal with them

BACKGROUND

Destination therapy (DT) is the permanent implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in patients with end-stage, severe heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation. DT improves both the quality of life and prognosis of patients with end-stage heart failure. However, there are also downsides to DT such as life-threatening complications and the potential for the patient to live beyond their desired length of life following such major complications. Because of deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs regarding death and the sanctity of life, Japanese society may not be ready to make changes needed to enable patients to have LVADs deactivated under certain circumstances to avoid needless suffering.

MAIN TEXT

Western ethical views that permit LVAD deactivation based mainly on respect for autonomy and dignity have not been accepted thus far in Japan and are unlikely to be accepted, given the current Japanese culture and traditional values. Some healthcare professionals might regard patients as ineligible for DT unless they have prepared advance directives. If this were to happen, the right to prepare an advance directive would instead become an obligation to do so. Furthermore, patient selection for DT poses another ethical issue. Given the predominant sanctity of life principle and lack of cost-consciousness regarding medical expenses, medically appropriate exclusion criteria would be ignored and DT could be applied to various patients, including very old patients, the demented, or even patients in persistent vegetative states, through on-site judgment.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for Japan to establish and enact a basic act for patient rights. The act should include: respect for a patient's right to self-determination; the right to refuse unwanted treatment; the right to prepare legally binding advance directives; the right to decline to prepare such directives; and access to nationally insured healthcare. It should enable those concerned with patient care involving DT to seek ethical advice from ethics committees. Furthermore, it should state that healthcare professionals involved in the discontinuation of life support in a proper manner are immune to any legal action and that they have the right to conscientiously object to LVAD deactivation.

[Rehabilitation standards for follow-up treatment and rehabilitation of patients with ventricular assist device (VAD)]

The increasing use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) in terminal heart failure patients provides new challenges to cardiac rehabilitation physicians. Structured cardiac rehabilitation strategies are still poorly implemented for this special patient group. Clear guidance and more evidence for optimal modalities are needed. Thereby, attention has to be paid to specific aspects, such as psychological and social support and education (e.g., device management, INR self-management, drive-line care, and medication).In Germany, the post-implant treatment and rehabilitation of VAD Patients working group was founded in 2012. This working group has developed clear recommendations for the rehabilitation of VAD patients according to the available literature. All facets of VAD patients' rehabilitation are covered. The present paper is unique in Europe and represents a milestone to overcome the heterogeneity of VAD patient rehabilitation.

Patients' decision making process and expectations of a left ventricular assist device pre and post implantation

OBJECTIVES

To examine patients' pre-implantation decision-making and pre and post-implantation expectations of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

BACKGROUND

LVADs have been shown to improve both quantity and quality of life of patients living with Stage D heart failure (HF). However, they also pose significant risks.

METHODS

15 LVAD participants followed in a longitudinal study of Stage D HF patients were included in this thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: no choice; I thought I would be doing better; I feel good, but now what. Evidence from pre-implantation to post-implantation suggested that patients' perceived expectations of quality of life improvement were not met.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of their declining health, most patients felt their only alternative to implantation was death. In the post-implantation period, patients expected greater improvements in their quality of life. Evidence based guidelines for discussions of goals of care, post-implant expectations, and palliative care are necessary.

Ventricular assist devices as destination therapy: psychosocial and ethical implications

One of the candidate evaluation challenges is determining when and how psychosocial domains influence short- and long-term destination therapy ventricular assist device (DT-VAD) outcomes. There are very few DT-VAD studies and no validated instruments to identify psychosocial risk factors. General practice is to borrow from the transplant literature, which may not be applicable to this unique device application. We question the relevance of using transplant psychosocial evaluation for patients who are candidates for DT-VAD only, particularly because these patients require a certain level of cognitive, psychological, and behavioral functioning to ensure proper long-term self-care with the VAD. We may be missing important psychological characteristics in our pre-evaluations by "borrowing" from the transplant literature, thereby underplaying significant factors that are especially relevant for DT-VAD candidates. Conversely, we may be screening out candidates who may benefit greatly from DT-VAD by using transplant criteria as part of the screening process. We use a case study to illustrate some of the challenges of weighing psychosocial risk factors in the DT-VAD population and to emphasize the need for developing distinct psychosocial assessment criteria for DT-VAD patients.

Left ventricular assist devices: a kidney's perspective

The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has become an established treatment option for patients with refractory heart failure. Many of these patients experience chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to chronic cardiorenal syndrome type II, which is often alleviated quickly following LVAD implantation. Nevertheless, reversibility of CKD remains difficult to predict. Interestingly, initial recovery of GFR appears to be transient, being followed by gradual but significant late decline. Nevertheless, GFR often remains elevated compared to preimplant status. Larger GFR increases are followed by a proportionally larger late decline. Several explanations for this gradual decline in renal function after LVAD therapy have been proposed, yet a definitive answer remains elusive. Mortality predictors of LVAD implantation are the occurrence of either postimplantation acute kidney injury (AKI) or preimplant CKD. However, patient outcomes continue to improve as LVAD therapy becomes more widespread, and adverse events including AKI appear to decline. In light of a growing destination therapy population, it is important to understand the cumulative effects of long-term LVAD support on kidney function. Additional research and passage of time are required to further unravel the intricate relationships between the LVAD and the kidney.

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.

Challenges in deactivating a total artificial heart for a patient with capacity

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has increased sixfold since 2006. Although there is an established legal and ethical consensus that patients have the right to withdraw and withhold life-sustaining interventions when burdens exceed benefits, this consensus arose prior to the widespread use of MCS technology and is not uniformly accepted in these cases. There are unique ethical and clinical considerations regarding MCS deactivation. Our center recently encountered the challenge of an awake and functionally improving patient with a total artificial heart (TAH) who requested its deactivation. We present a narrative description of this case with discussion of the following questions: (1) Is it ethically permissible to deactivate this particular device, the TAH? (2) Are there any particular factors in this case that are ethical contraindications to proceeding with deactivation? (3) What are the specific processes necessary to ensure a compassionate and respectful deactivation? (4) What proactive practices could have been implemented to lessen the intensity of this case's challenges? We close with a list of recommendations for managing similar cases.