Article

The Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Medical, Ethical, Practical, and Legal Considerations.

Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Kalmar County Hospital.
Deutsches Ärzteblatt International (Impact Factor: 3.61). 08/2012; 109(33-34):535-541. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0535
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Norbert W Paul, Mar 18, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
132 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years the prognosis and survival of chronic and acute heart failure (HF) patients has been steadily improving; however, many patients develop advanced chronic HF which is characterized by worsening of symptoms, unplanned hospital admission due to acute decompensation, development of complications, such as life-threatening arrhythmia and shorter life span. Optimal medical therapy is supplemented by interventional cardiology, cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), minimally invasive valve replacement or repair, circulatory mechanical support and heart transplantation. Medical indications and informed consent are essential prerequisites for successfully implementing treatment goals. For patients who are incapable of decisions a legally defined surrogate decision-maker has the same right to refuse or request the withdrawal of treatment as the patient would have if the patient had decision-making capability. As the use of circulatory mechanical support becomes increasingly more prevalent, ethical issues are likely to arise at an increasing rate, as will social and legal ramifications. The concept of turning off an implanted device as death nears is challenging because of ethical and technical concerns. The same holds true for CIEDs. A palliative care approach is applicable to heart failure patients and is particularly relevant to those with advanced disease. Palliative care should be integrated as part of a team approach to comprehensive HF care and should not be reserved for those who are expected to die within days or weeks.
    04/2013; 108(4). DOI:10.1007/s00063-012-0193-z
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sterben auf der Intensivstation von Patienten mit kardial implantierten elektrischen Geräten (CIED) ist ein in der Intensivmedizin häufiges Szenario. In Anbetracht der demographischen Entwicklung und der steigenden Implantationsrate von kardialen Rhythmusgeräten wächst gerade beim Intensivmediziner das Bewusstsein der Last und Folgen dieser Systeme in der terminalen Lebensphase. Er wird mit der äußerst komplexen klinisch-ethisch-rechtlichen Fragestellung einer möglichen „Cardiovascular-implantable-electronic-device(CIED)-Deaktivierung konfrontiert. Den meisten Todesfällen gehen komplexe Krankheitsprozesse mit Therapieminimierung bzw. Therapiezieländerung voraus. Gerade in Situationen der Therapiezieländerung mit einem dann primär palliativen Therapieansatz muss entschieden werden, ob ein CIED durch das ursprüngliche Behandlungsziel noch gerechtfertigt ist, oder durch den Schrittmacher lediglich eine Leidens- und Sterbeprozessverlängerung verursacht wird. Dabei muss ethisch und juristisch zwischen den Möglichkeiten, den Konsequenzen und den Unterschieden einer Deaktivierung verschiedener CIED-Systeme differenziert werden. Gerade die Deaktivierung eines implantierbaren Kardioverter/Defibrillatoren (ICD) oder eines antibradykarden Schrittmachers bei kompletter Schrittmacherpflichtigkeit ist problematisch und muss differenziert betrachtet werden.
    02/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00063-013-0282-7