Lillian C Buchhalter1, Abigale L Ottenberg2, Tracy L Webster3, Keith M Swetz4, David L Hayes3, Paul S Mueller4. 1. Mayo Medical School, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Program in Professionalism and Ethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Program in Professionalism and Ethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota4Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about patients who undergo cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation. OBJECTIVE: To describe features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of medical records of 150 patients at a tertiary academic medical center (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). EXPOSURE Cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic and clinical data and information regarding advance directives, ethics consultations, palliative medicine consultations, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivations. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients (median age, 79 years; 67% were male), 149 (99%) had poor or terminal prognoses. Overall, 118 patients (79%) underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only, and 32 (21%) underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (6 patients [4%] were pacemaker-dependent). Half of the deactivation requests (51%) were made by surrogates. A majority of deactivations (55%) were carried out by nurses. Although 85 patients (57%) had advance directives, only 1 mentioned the device in the directive. Ethics consultations occurred in 3 patients (2%) and palliative medicine consultations in 64 (43%). The proportions of patients who died within 1 month of device deactivation were similar for those who underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only and those who underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (85% vs 94%; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most requests for cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation were for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-delivered tachycardia therapies only. Many of these requests were made by surrogates. Advance directives executed by patients with these devices rarely addressed device management. Regardless of device therapy, most patients died shortly after device deactivation. Hence, a device deactivation decision may reflect the seriousness of a given patient's underlying illness. Patients with devices should engage in advance care planning to ensure that future care is consistent with their preferences.
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about patients who undergo cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation. OBJECTIVE: To describe features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of medical records of 150 patients at a tertiary academic medical center (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). EXPOSURE Cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic and clinical data and information regarding advance directives, ethics consultations, palliative medicine consultations, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivations. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients (median age, 79 years; 67% were male), 149 (99%) had poor or terminal prognoses. Overall, 118 patients (79%) underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only, and 32 (21%) underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (6 patients [4%] were pacemaker-dependent). Half of the deactivation requests (51%) were made by surrogates. A majority of deactivations (55%) were carried out by nurses. Although 85 patients (57%) had advance directives, only 1 mentioned the device in the directive. Ethics consultations occurred in 3 patients (2%) and palliative medicine consultations in 64 (43%). The proportions of patients who died within 1 month of device deactivation were similar for those who underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only and those who underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (85% vs 94%; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most requests for cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation were for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-delivered tachycardia therapies only. Many of these requests were made by surrogates. Advance directives executed by patients with these devices rarely addressed device management. Regardless of device therapy, most patients died shortly after device deactivation. Hence, a device deactivation decision may reflect the seriousness of a given patient's underlying illness. Patients with devices should engage in advance care planning to ensure that future care is consistent with their preferences.
Authors: William R Lewis; Donna L Luebke; Nancy J Johnson; Michael D Harrington; Ottorino Costantini; Mark P Aulisio Journal: Am J Med Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Bruce L Wilkoff; Angelo Auricchio; Josep Brugada; Martin Cowie; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Anne M Gillis; David L Hayes; Jonathan G Howlett; Josef Kautzner; Charles J Love; John M Morgan; Silvia G Priori; Dwight W Reynolds; Mark H Schoenfeld; Panos E Vardas Journal: Europace Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Nathan E Goldstein; Rachel Lampert; Elizabeth Bradley; Joanne Lynn; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-12-07 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Saadia Sherazi; Scott McNitt; Mehmet K Aktas; Bronislava Polonsky; Abrar H Shah; Arthur J Moss; James P Daubert; Wojciech Zareba Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 1.976
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: Daniel B Kramer; Daniel D Matlock; Alfred E Buxton; Nathan E Goldstein; Carol Goodwin; Ariel R Green; James N Kirkpatrick; Christopher Knoepke; Rachel Lampert; Paul S Mueller; Matthew R Reynolds; John A Spertus; Lynne W Stevenson; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-06-02
Authors: Laura P Gelfman; Dio Kavalieratos; Winifred G Teuteberg; Anuradha Lala; Nathan E Goldstein Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Valentina Gonzalez-Jaramillo; Piotr Sobanski; Jose A Calvache; Luisa F Arenas-Ochoa; Oscar H Franco; Lukas Hunziker; Steffen Eychmüller; Maud Maessen Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 4.762
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