PURPOSE: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. RESULTS: Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a "ticking time bomb." CONCLUSIONS: Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.
PURPOSE: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. RESULTS: Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a "ticking time bomb." CONCLUSIONS: Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Saadia Sherazi; James P Daubert; Robert C Block; Vinodh Jeevanantham; Khalid Abdel-Gadir; Michael R DiSalle; James M Haley; Abrar H Shah Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Nathan E Goldstein; Davendra Mehta; Ezra Teitelbaum; Elizabeth H Bradley; R Sean Morrison Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nathan E Goldstein; Davendra Mehta; Saima Siddiqui; Ezra Teitelbaum; Jessica Zeidman; Magdelena Singson; Elena Pe; Elizabeth H Bradley; R Sean Morrison Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Abigale L Ottenberg; Paul S Mueller; Rachel J Topazian; Sharon Kaufman; Keith M Swetz Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Rik Stoevelaar; Arianne Brinkman-Stoppelenburg; Anne Geert van Driel; Rozemarijn L van Bruchem-Visser; Dominic Amj Theuns; Rohit E Bhagwandien; Agnes Van der Heide; Judith Ac Rietjens Journal: Heart Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Holly Standing; Richard G Thomson; Darren Flynn; Julian Hughes; Kerry Joyce; Trudie Lobban; Stephen Lord; Dan D Matlock; Janet M McComb; Paul Paes; Chris Wilkinson; Catherine Exley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: R Stoevelaar; A Brinkman-Stoppelenburg; R L van Bruchem-Visser; A G van Driel; R E Bhagwandien; D A M J Theuns; J A C Rietjens; A van der Heide Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.380