A Survey of Physicians' Attitudes toward Decision-Making Authority for Initiating and Withdrawing VA-ECMO: Results and Ethical Implications for Shared Decision Making

The Complex Dynamics of Decision-Making at the End of Life in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review of Stakeholders' Views and Influential Factors

A lack of consensus resulting in severe conflicts is often observed between the stakeholders regarding their respective roles in end-of-life (EOL) decision-making in the ICU. Since the burden of these decisions lies upon the individuals, their opinions must be known by medical, judicial, legislative, and governmental authorities. Part of the solution to the issues that arise would be to examine and understand the views of the people in different societies. Hence, in this systematic review, we assessed the attitudes of the physicians, nurses, families, and the general public toward who should be involved in decision-making and influencing factors. Toward this, we searched three electronic databases, i.e., PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health), and Embase. A matrix was developed, discussed, accepted, and used for data extraction by two independent investigators. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted by one researcher and double-checked by a second one, and any discrepancies were discussed with a third researcher. The data were analyzed descriptively and synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Thirty-three studies met our inclusion criteria. Most involved healthcare professionals and reported geographic variations in different timeframes. While paternalistic features have been observed, physicians overall showed an inclination toward collaborative decision-making. Correspondingly, the nursing staff, families, and the public are aligned toward patient and relatives' participation, with nurses expressing their own involvement as well. Six categories of influencing factors were identified, with high-impact factors, including demographics, fear of litigation, and regulation-related ones. Findings delineate three key points. Firstly, overall stakeholders' perspectives toward EOL decision-making in the ICU seem to be leaning toward a more collaborative decision-making direction. Secondly, to reduce conflicts and reach a consensus, multifaceted efforts are needed by both healthcare professionals and governmental/regulatory authorities. Finally, due to the multifactorial complexity of the subject, directly related to demographic and regulatory factors, these efforts should be more extensively sought at a regional level.

Clinical picture of the duration of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: analysis from JROAD-DPC

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been widely used for critically ill patients all over the world; however, comprehensive survey regarding the relationship between VA-ECMO duration and prognosis is limited. We conducted a survey of VA-ECMO patients in the Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases-Diagnosis Procedure Combination (JROAD-DPC), which was a health insurance claim database study among cardiovascular centers associated with the Japan Circulation Society, between April 2012 and March 2016. Out of 13,542 VA-ECMO patients, we analyzed 5766 cardiovascular patients treated with VA-ECMO. 68% patients used VA-ECMO only for 1 day and 93% had VA-ECMO terminated within 1 week. In multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio of 1-day support was significantly high at 1.72 (95% confidence intervals; 95% CI 1.53-1.95) (p < 0.001), while that of 2-day [0.60 (95% CI 0.49-0.73)], 3-day [0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.94)], 4-day [0.43 (95% CI 0.31-0.60)] and 5-day support [0.62 (95% CI 0.44-0.86)] was significantly low. Comprehensive database analysis of JROAD-DPC revealed that cardiovascular patients who were supported with VA-ECMO for 2-5 days showed lower mortality. The optimal VA-ECMO support window should be investigated in further studies.

Quality indicators of palliative care for cardiovascular intensive care

Healthcare providers working for cardiovascular intensive care often face challenges and they play an essential role in palliative care and end-of-life care because of the high mortality rates in the cardiac intensive care unit. Unfortunately, there are several barriers to integrating palliative care, cardiovascular care, and intensive care. The main reasons are as follows: cardiovascular disease-specific trajectories differ from cancer, there is uncertainty associated with treatments and diagnoses, aggressive treatments are necessary for symptom relief, and there is ethical dilemma regarding withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Quality indicators that can iterate the minimum requirements of each medical discipline could be used to overcome these barriers and effectively practice palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Unfortunately, there are no specific quality indicators for palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. A few indicators and their domains are useful for understanding current palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Among them, several domains, such as symptom palliation, patient- and family-centered decision-making, continuity of care, and support for health care providers that are particularly important in cardiovascular intensive care.

Historically, the motivation for using quality indicators is to summarize mechanisms for external accountability and verification, and formative mechanisms for quality improvement. Practically, when using quality indicators, it is necessary to check structural indicators in each healthcare service line, screen palliative care at the first visit, and integrate palliative care teams with other professionals. Finally, we would like to state that quality indicators in cardiovascular intensive care could be useful as an educational tool for practicing palliative care, understanding the minimum requirements, and as a basic structure for future discussions.

Ethics in extracorporeal life support: a narrative review

During 50 years of extracorporeal life support (ECLS), this highly invasive technology has left a considerable imprint on modern medicine, and it still confronts researchers, clinicians and policymakers with multifarious ethical challenges. After half a century of academic discussion about the ethics of ECLS, it seems appropriate to review the state of the argument and the trends in it. Through a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, we identified three ethical discourses: (1) trials and evidence accompanying the use of ECLS, (2) ECLS allocation, decision-making and limiting care, and (3) death on ECLS and ECLS in organ donation. All included articles were carefully reviewed, arguments extracted and grouped into the three discourses. This article provides a narrative synthesis of these arguments, evaluates the opportunities for mediation and substantiates the necessity of a shared decision-making approach at the limits of medical care.

Ethics Consultation for Adult Solid Organ Transplantation Candidates and Recipients: A Single Centre Experience

Systematic study of the intersection of ethics consultation services and solid organ transplants and recipients can identify and illustrate ethical issues that arise in the clinical care of these patients, including challenges beyond resource allocation. This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of all adult ethics consultations between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, at a large academic medical centre in the north-eastern United States. Of the 880 ethics consultations, sixty (6.8 per cent ) involved solid organ transplant, thirty-nine (65.0 per cent) for candidates and twenty-one (35.0 per cent ) for recipients. Ethics consultations were requested for 4.3 per cent of heart, 4.9 per cent of lung, 0.3 per cent of liver, and 0.3 per cent of kidney transplant recipients over the study period. Nurses were more likely to request ethics consultations for recipients than physicians (80.0 per cent vs 20.0 per cent , p = 0.006). The most common reason for consultation among transplant candidates was discussion about intensity of treatment or goals of care after the patient was not or was no longer a transplant candidate. The most common reason for ethics consultation among transplant recipients was disagreement between transplant providers and patients/families/non-transplant healthcare professionals over the appropriate intensity of treatment for recipients. Very few consultations involved questions about appropriate resource allocation. Ethics consultants involved in these cases most often navigated communication challenges between transplant and non-transplant healthcare professionals and patients and families.

[Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions]

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

Ethical factors determining ECMO allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

ECMO is a particularly scarce resource during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its allocation involves ethical considerations that may be different to usual times. There is limited pre-pandemic literature on the ethical factors that ECMO physicians consider during ECMO allocation. During the pandemic, there has been relatively little professional guidance specifically relating to ethics and ECMO allocation; although there has been active ethical debate about allocation of other critical care resources. We report the results of a small international exploratory survey of ECMO clinicians’ views on different patient factors in ECMO decision-making prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then outline current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for rationing life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and examine the extent to which current guidelines for ECMO allocation (and reported practice) adhere to these ethical guidelines and recommendations.

Methods

An online survey was performed with responses recorded between mid May and mid August 2020. Participants (n = 48) were sourced from the ECMOCard study group—an international group of experts (n = 120) taking part in a prospective international study of ECMO and intensive care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey compared the extent to which certain ethical factors involved in ECMO resource allocation were considered prior to and during the pandemic.

Results

When initiating ECMO during the pandemic, compared to usual times, participants reported giving more ethical weight to the benefit of ECMO to other patients not yet admitted as opposed to those already receiving ECMO, (p < 0.001). If a full unit were referred a good candidate for ECMO, participants were more likely during the pandemic to consider discontinuing ECMO from a current patient with low chance of survival (53% during pandemic vs. 33% prior p = 0.002). If the clinical team recommends that ECMO should cease, but family do not agree, the majority of participants indicated that they would continue treatment, both in usual circumstances (67%) and during the pandemic (56%).

Conclusions

We found differences during the COVID-19 pandemic in prioritisation of several ethical factors in the context of ECMO allocation. The ethical principles prioritised by survey participants were largely consistent with ECMO allocation guidelines, current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for allocation of life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00638-y.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation allocation in the COVID-19 pandemic

Rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resultant clinical illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), drove the World Health Organization to declare COVID-19 a pandemic. Veno-venous Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an established therapy for management of patients demonstrating the most severe forms of hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19. However, features of COVID-19 pathophysiology and necessary length of treatment present distinct challenges for utilization of VV-ECMO within the current healthcare emergency. In addition, growing allocation concerns due to capacity and cost present significant challenges. Ethical and legal aspects pertinent to triage of this resource-intensive, but potentially life-saving, therapy in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic are reviewed here. Given considerations relevant to VV-ECMO use, additional emphasis has been placed on emerging hospital resource scarcity and disproportionate representation of healthcare workers among the ill. Considerations are also discussed surrounding withdrawal of VV-ECMO and the role for early communication as well as consultation from palliative care teams and local ethics committees. In discussing how to best manage these issues in the COVID-19 pandemic at present, we identify gaps in the literature and policy important to clinicians as this crisis continues.

•

VV-ECMO may successfully treat respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

•

The coronavirus pandemic necessitates judicious use of this resource-intensive therapy.

•

Unique features of COVID-19, including isolation from surrogates, present challenges.

•

Providers face difficult triage decisions that must be communicated appropriately.

•

We review available resources and support tools for clinicians considering VV-ECMO.

[Recommendations for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) : Consensus statement of DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI and GRC]

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) may be considered as a rescue attempt for highly selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest and potentially reversible etiology. Currently there are no randomized, controlled studies on eCPR, and valid predictors of benefit and outcome which might guide the indication for eCPR are lacking. Currently selection criteria and procedures differ across hospitals and standardized algorithms are lacking. Based on expert opinion, the present consensus statement provides a proposal for a standardized treatment algorithm for eCPR.

Mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock post-acute myocardial infarction-a decade of lessons

BACKGROUND

There are 0.9 catheterization labs per 100,000 inhabitants in Scotland for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which are much less accessible to patients in remote and rural areas. An uncommon but sinister sequalae following AMI is cardiogenic shock (CS) that could be refractory to inotropic support. CS complicates 5-15% of AMIs occurring in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs). Outcomes of CS are poor with mortalities of up to 90% reported in the literature in the absence of experienced care. We report our experience as the tertiary referral centre in Scotland for MCS and heart transplantation over 8 years.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was undertaken on all patients registered to the MCS service. The database was interrogated for patient demographics, type of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and duration of MCS support, PCI-outcomes and survival to 30 days. A time-to-event analysis was performed using patient survival as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients (16 male, 7 females) were included. The median age of the patients as 50 years (range, 45-56 years). VA-ECMO was the initial MCS of choice in 17 (73.9%) patients with BIVAD for 4 (17.4%) patients and LVAD for 2 (8.7%) patients. Thirty-day mortality was 21.8% in this cohort, however survival to discharge was 52.2%. Eleven (47.8%) patients recovered without the need for any further support, however only 9 (81.8%) patients in this subgroup survived to discharge. Three (13.0%) patients received a durable LVAD. In this subgroup, one patient was transplanted whereas two patients died due to complications while on support. The median length of in-hospital MCS support was 4 days. Median in-hospital stay was 27 days. Long-term follow up of up to 8 years demonstrates a high mortality beyond 30-day up to the first 6-month post MCS support.

CONCLUSIONS

MCS usage in these patients carries a high mortality in the early post-implantation period. However, there is a significant benefit to patients who survive the initial bridging period to recovery or destination therapy.

Principlism and Personalism. Comparing Two Ethical Models Applied Clinically in Neonates Undergoing Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology used to temporarily assist critically ill patients with acute and reversible life-threatening cardiac and/or respiratory failure. This technology can often be lifesaving but is also associated with several complications that may contribute to reduced survival. Currently, neonates supported with ECMO are complex and bear an increased risk of mortality. This means that clinicians must be particularly prepared not only to deal with complex clinical scenarios, but also ethical issues associated with ECMO. In particular, clinicians should be trained to handle unsuccessful ECMO runs with attention to high quality end of life care. Within this manuscript we will compare and contrast the application of two ethical frameworks, used in the authors' institutions (Toronto and Rome). This is intended to enhance a broader understanding of cultural differences in applied ethics which is useful to the clinician in an increasingly multicultural and diverse patient mix.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) and the Critical Cardiac Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is to summarize the basics of veno-arterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as it is utilized for critically ill cardiac patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

ECMO may be instituted in a variety of health care settings, from the emergency room to the operating room. The types of patients who may benefit from ECMO are reviewed in detail. The complications of ECMO are reviewed, including access-related issues and hematologic and neurologic problems. The principles of weaning of ECMO are described.

CONCLUSION

Due to its versatility and relatively low cost, VA ECMO use is sharply increasing worldwide. It is important to select patients carefully for this mode of therapy as it can keep patients alive even in states of severe neurologic impairment or multiorgan failure. Short courses of ECMO may allow critically ill patients to be salvaged, but ultimately survival depends on resolution of the underlying problem or ability to transition to another more durable mode of cardiac support.