Article

Ethical and legal views of physicians regarding deactivation of cardiac implantable electrical devices: A quantitative assessment

CardioVascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02446, USA.
Heart rhythm: the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society (Impact Factor: 4.92). 11/2010; 7(11):1537-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.07.018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite the high prevalence of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, little is known about physicians' views surrounding the ethical and legal aspects of managing these devices at the end of life.
The purpose of this study was to identify physicians' experiences and views surrounding the ethical and legal aspects of managing cardiac devices at the end of life.
Survey questions were administered to internal medicine physicians and subspecialists at a tertiary care center. Physicians were surveyed about their clinical experience, legal knowledge, and ethical beliefs relating to the withdrawal of PM and ICD therapy in comparison to other life-sustaining therapies.
Responses were obtained from 185 physicians. Compared to withdrawal of PMs and ICDs, physicians more often reported having participated in the withdrawal or removal of mechanical ventilation (86.1% vs 33.9%, P <.0001), dialysis (60.6% vs 33.9%, P <.001), and feeding tubes (73.8% vs 33.9%, P <.0001). Physicians were consistently less comfortable discussing cessation of PMs and ICDs compared to other life-sustaining therapies (P <.005). Only 65% of physicians correctly identified the legal status of euthanasia in the United States, and 20% accurately reported the legal status of physician-assisted suicide in the United States. Compared to deactivation of an ICD, physicians more often characterized deactivation of a PM in a pacemaker-dependent patient as physician-assisted suicide (19% vs 10%, P = .027) or euthanasia (9% vs 1%, P <.001).
In this single-center study, internists were less comfortable discussing cessation of PM and ICD therapy compared to other life-sustaining therapies and lacked experience with this practice. Education regarding the legal and ethical parameters of device deactivation is needed.

0 Followers
 · 
82 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current international expert consensus statements recommend that clinicians should discuss elective implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation before implantation of the device, and then consistently during the illness trajectory. However, no previous studies have investigated predictors of ICD patients' knowledge about end-of-life issues or whether knowledge influences patients' attitudes about deactivation. This nationwide survey study (n = 3,067) had a cross-sectional correlational design of self-reported data. Participants were recruited from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry and asked to complete a questionnaire about knowledge in relation to the ICD and end-of-life. Only 79 respondents (3%) scored correctly on all 11 questions. The mean sample score was 6.6 ± 2.7 out of a maximum score of 11. A total of 835 participants (29%) had an insufficient knowledge when using the 25th percentile as a cutoff. Younger ICD recipients, those cohabiting, male participants, and those who had received shocks, had a generator replacement, or who had discussed illness trajectory with their physician were more likely to have sufficient knowledge on the end-of-life issues. Insufficient knowledge was associated with indecisiveness to make decisions about ICD deactivation in the end-of-life situations, and with favorable attitudes about replacing the ICD even if seriously ill or have reached an advanced age, and keeping the shock therapy of the ICD even in a terminal phase of life when dying from cancer or other serious chronic illnesses. Insufficient knowledge is common among ICD recipients and is associated with attitudes and decisions that may result in a stressful and potentially painful end-of-life situation.
    Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 01/2014; 37(7). DOI:10.1111/pace.12353 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Implantable defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death. With declining health, ICD therapy may prolong death and expose the patient to unnecessary pain and anxiety. Few studies have addressed end of life care in ICD patients. The objective of this study was to investigate end of life in ICD patients, with respect to location of death; duration between do-not-resuscitate (DNR)-orders and deactivation of ICD therapy or DNR and time of death. A descriptive analysis of 65 deceased ICD patients, all whom had a written DNR-order before death, is presented. The majority (86%) was treated in hospitals, mainly (63%) university hospitals, and many (33%) in cardiology wards. Despite DNR-order, ICD shock therapy was active in 51% of all patients. In those with therapy deactivated at death, therapy deactivation was carried out two days or more after DNR-order in more than a third (38%). The time from DNR decision to death in patients with therapy active had a median of four days (IQR 1-38). During the last 24h of life, 24% of the patients experienced shock treatment. The majority of ICD patients with a DNR-order were treated in university hospitals. More than half still had shock treatment active at time of death with a median of four days or more between DNR decision and death. Patients with therapy deactivated, two days or more elapsed in more than a third from DNR decision to deactivation of therapy, exposing patients to a high risk of painful shocks before death. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Cardiology 01/2015; 182C:440-446. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.012 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heart failure (HF), a complex clinical syndrome due to structural or functional disorder of the heart, is a major global health issue, with a prevalence of over 5.8 million in the USA alone, and over 23 million worldwide. As a leading cause of hospitalizations among patients aged 65 years or older, HF is a major consumer of healthcare resources, creating a substantial strain on the healthcare system. This paper discusses the epidemiology of HF, financial impact, and multifaceted predicaments in end-stage HF care. A search was conducted on the U.S. National Library of Medicine website (www.pubmed.gov) using keywords such as end-stage heart failure, palliative care, ethical dilemmas. Despite the poor prognosis of HF (worse than that for many cancers), many HF patients, caregivers, and clinicians are unaware of the poor prognosis. In addition, the unpredictable clinical trajectory of HF complicates the planning of end-of-life care, such as palliative care and hospice, leading to underutilization of such resources. In conclusion, ethical dilemmas in end-stage HF are numerous, embroiling not only the patient, but also the caregiver, healthcare team, and society.
    Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 01/2015; 12(1):57-65. DOI:10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2015.01.007 · 1.06 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from