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 p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of cardiology 2012, Vol.109 (1), p.91-94
Hauptverfasser: Kirkpatrick, James N., MD, Gottlieb, Maia, Sehgal, Priya, Patel, Rutuke, PA-C, Verdino, Ralph J., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 94
container_issue 1
container_start_page 91
container_title The American journal of cardiology
container_volume 109
creator Kirkpatrick, James N., MD
Gottlieb, Maia
Sehgal, Priya
Patel, Rutuke, PA-C
Verdino, Ralph J., MD
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.08.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_912108824</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0002914911025550</els_id><sourcerecordid>912108824</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-13cdf4684d13607a23a537df63eb4e6586eb19b4fa69c314c0d1931e6c0c0bc53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks1u1DAUhS0EokPhEUARUsUqwTeOnXgDQtMCI43URcvaOM6N5OA4g50ZqW9fpzMtUjcsrCtL3zn3l5D3QAugID4PhR4Ho0NXlBSgoE2RwguygqaWOUhgL8mKUlrmEip5Rt7EOKQvABevyVkJsmKS1Svy-xK1me1Bz3by2dRnm3HntJ916zBbJ3s7HTDMGLJL7G0brHN6nkLMrM9uMYzWa5dtnPMYY6Z9l12ll2y2tn_Q41vyqtcu4rtTPCe_vl_drn_m2-sfm_W3bW54I-ccmOn6SjRVB0zQWpdMc1Z3vWDYVih4I7AF2Va9FtIwqAztQDJAYaihreHsnHw6-u7C9HePcVajjQZTuR6nfVQSSqBNU1aJ_PiMHKZ9SH0sEEhRl1WdIH6ETJhiDNirXbCjDncKqFoWoAZ1WoBaFqBoo1JIug8n8307Yvekepx4Ai5OgI5Guz5ob2z8x4nkxunCfT1ymIZ2sBhUNBa9wc4GNLPqJvvfUr48czDOepuS_sE7jE9Ng4qloupmuZblWABoyTmn7B6GKLoL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>911967247</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Terminal Illness and End of Life Care</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD ; Gottlieb, Maia ; Sehgal, Priya ; Patel, Rutuke, PA-C ; Verdino, Ralph J., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD ; Gottlieb, Maia ; Sehgal, Priya ; Patel, Rutuke, PA-C ; Verdino, Ralph J., MD</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1913</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.08.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21943937</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJCDAG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cardiology ; Cardiology. Vascular system ; Cardiovascular ; Decision Making ; Defibrillators ; Defibrillators, Implantable - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Patients ; Primary care ; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Terminal Care - methods ; Terminal illnesses ; Withholding Treatment - utilization ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The American journal of cardiology, 2012, Vol.109 (1), p.91-94</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Jan 1, 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-13cdf4684d13607a23a537df63eb4e6586eb19b4fa69c314c0d1931e6c0c0bc53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-13cdf4684d13607a23a537df63eb4e6586eb19b4fa69c314c0d1931e6c0c0bc53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.08.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,4024,27923,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26201507$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21943937$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottlieb, Maia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sehgal, Priya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Rutuke, PA-C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verdino, Ralph J., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Terminal Illness and End of Life Care</title><title>The American journal of cardiology</title><addtitle>Am J Cardiol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Cardiology. Vascular system</subject><subject>Cardiovascular</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Defibrillators</subject><subject>Defibrillators, Implantable - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Terminal Care - methods</subject><subject>Terminal illnesses</subject><subject>Withholding Treatment - utilization</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0002-9149</issn><issn>1879-1913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks1u1DAUhS0EokPhEUARUsUqwTeOnXgDQtMCI43URcvaOM6N5OA4g50ZqW9fpzMtUjcsrCtL3zn3l5D3QAugID4PhR4Ho0NXlBSgoE2RwguygqaWOUhgL8mKUlrmEip5Rt7EOKQvABevyVkJsmKS1Svy-xK1me1Bz3by2dRnm3HntJ916zBbJ3s7HTDMGLJL7G0brHN6nkLMrM9uMYzWa5dtnPMYY6Z9l12ll2y2tn_Q41vyqtcu4rtTPCe_vl_drn_m2-sfm_W3bW54I-ccmOn6SjRVB0zQWpdMc1Z3vWDYVih4I7AF2Va9FtIwqAztQDJAYaihreHsnHw6-u7C9HePcVajjQZTuR6nfVQSSqBNU1aJ_PiMHKZ9SH0sEEhRl1WdIH6ETJhiDNirXbCjDncKqFoWoAZ1WoBaFqBoo1JIug8n8307Yvekepx4Ai5OgI5Guz5ob2z8x4nkxunCfT1ymIZ2sBhUNBa9wc4GNLPqJvvfUr48czDOepuS_sE7jE9Ng4qloupmuZblWABoyTmn7B6GKLoL</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD</creator><creator>Gottlieb, Maia</creator><creator>Sehgal, Priya</creator><creator>Patel, Rutuke, PA-C</creator><creator>Verdino, Ralph J., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Terminal Illness and End of Life Care</title><author>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD ; Gottlieb, Maia ; Sehgal, Priya ; Patel, Rutuke, PA-C ; Verdino, Ralph J., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-13cdf4684d13607a23a537df63eb4e6586eb19b4fa69c314c0d1931e6c0c0bc53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Cardiology. Vascular system</topic><topic>Cardiovascular</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Defibrillators</topic><topic>Defibrillators, Implantable - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Terminal Care - methods</topic><topic>Terminal illnesses</topic><topic>Withholding Treatment - utilization</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottlieb, Maia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sehgal, Priya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Rutuke, PA-C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verdino, Ralph J., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kirkpatrick, James N., MD</au><au>Gottlieb, Maia</au><au>Sehgal, Priya</au><au>Patel, Rutuke, PA-C</au><au>Verdino, Ralph J., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Terminal Illness and End of Life Care</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Cardiol</addtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>109</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>91</spage><epage>94</epage><pages>91-94</pages><issn>0002-9149</issn><eissn>1879-1913</eissn><coden>AJCDAG</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>21943937</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.08.011</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9149
ispartof The American journal of cardiology, 2012, Vol.109 (1), p.91-94
issn 0002-9149
1879-1913
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_912108824
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Attitude of Health Personnel
Biological and medical sciences
Cardiology
Cardiology. Vascular system
Cardiovascular
Decision Making
Defibrillators
Defibrillators, Implantable - statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Patients
Primary care
Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)
Surveys and Questionnaires
Terminal Care - methods
Terminal illnesses
Withholding Treatment - utilization
Young Adult
title Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Terminal Illness and End of Life Care
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T10%3A18%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Deactivation%20of%20Implantable%20Cardioverter%20Defibrillators%20in%20Terminal%20Illness%20and%20End%20of%20Life%20Care&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20cardiology&rft.au=Kirkpatrick,%20James%20N.,%20MD&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=91&rft.epage=94&rft.pages=91-94&rft.issn=0002-9149&rft.eissn=1879-1913&rft.coden=AJCDAG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.08.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E912108824%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=911967247&rft_id=info:pmid/21943937&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0002914911025550&rfr_iscdi=true