Colleen K McIlvennan1, Sara E Wordingham2, Larry A Allen3, Daniel D Matlock4, Jacqueline Jones5, Shannon M Dunlay6, Keith M Swetz7. 1. Section of Advanced Heart Failure and Transplantation, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: colleen.mcilvennan@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Palliative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 3. Section of Advanced Heart Failure and Transplantation, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, Colorado. 5. University of Colorado College of Nursing, Aurora, Colorado. 6. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases and Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Department of Veterans Affairs, Birmingham/Atlanta Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Birmingham, Alabama; Birmingham VA Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama; Center for Palliative and Supportive Care, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beliefs around deactivation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) vary substantially among clinicians, institutions, and patients. Therefore, we sought to understand perspectives regarding LVAD deactivation among cardiology and hospice/palliative medicine (HPM) clinicians. METHODS AND RESULTS: We administered a 41-item survey via electronic mail to members of 3 cardiology and 1 HPM professional societies. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used. From October through November 2011, 7168 individuals were sent the survey and 440 responded. Three domains emerged: (1) LVAD as a life-sustaining therapy; (2) complexities of the process of LVAD deactivation; and (3) legal and ethical considerations of LVAD deactivation. Most respondents (cardiology 92%; HPM 81%; P = .15) believed that an LVAD is a life-sustaining treatment for patients with advanced heart failure; however, 60% of cardiology vs 2% of HPM clinicians believed a patient should be imminently dying to deactivate an LVAD (P < .001). Additionally, 87% of cardiology vs 100% of HPM clinicians believed the cause of death following LVAD deactivation was from underlying disease (P < .001), with 13% of cardiology clinicians considering it to be a form of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. CONCLUSION: Cardiology and HPM clinicians have differing perspectives regarding LVAD deactivation. Bridging the gaps and engaging in dialog between these 2 specialties is a critical first step in creating a more cohesive approach to care for LVAD patients.
BACKGROUND: Beliefs around deactivation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) vary substantially among clinicians, institutions, and patients. Therefore, we sought to understand perspectives regarding LVAD deactivation among cardiology and hospice/palliative medicine (HPM) clinicians. METHODS AND RESULTS: We administered a 41-item survey via electronic mail to members of 3 cardiology and 1 HPM professional societies. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used. From October through November 2011, 7168 individuals were sent the survey and 440 responded. Three domains emerged: (1) LVAD as a life-sustaining therapy; (2) complexities of the process of LVAD deactivation; and (3) legal and ethical considerations of LVAD deactivation. Most respondents (cardiology 92%; HPM 81%; P = .15) believed that an LVAD is a life-sustaining treatment for patients with advanced heart failure; however, 60% of cardiology vs 2% of HPM clinicians believed a patient should be imminently dying to deactivate an LVAD (P < .001). Additionally, 87% of cardiology vs 100% of HPM clinicians believed the cause of death following LVAD deactivation was from underlying disease (P < .001), with 13% of cardiology clinicians considering it to be a form of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. CONCLUSION: Cardiology and HPM clinicians have differing perspectives regarding LVAD deactivation. Bridging the gaps and engaging in dialog between these 2 specialties is a critical first step in creating a more cohesive approach to care for LVADpatients.
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Susan M Hailpern; Ronit Katz; Yoshio N Hall; Manjula Kurella Tamura; William Kreuter; Ann M O'Hare Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: James N Kirkpatrick; Sarah C Hull; Savitri Fedson; Brendan Mullen; Sarah J Goodlin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Finn Gustafsson; Binyamin Ben Avraham; Ovidiu Chioncel; Tal Hasin; Avishai Grupper; Aviv Shaul; Sanemn Nalbantgil; Yoav Hammer; Wilfried Mullens; Laurens F Tops; Jeremy Elliston; Steven Tsui; Davor Milicic; Johann Altenberger; Miriam Abuhazira; Stephan Winnik; Jacob Lavee; Massimo Francesco Piepoli; Lorrena Hill; Righab Hamdan; Arjang Ruhparwar; Stefan Anker; Marisa Generosa Crespo-Leiro; Andrew J S Coats; Gerasimos Filippatos; Marco Metra; Giuseppe Rosano; Petar Seferovic; Frank Ruschitzka; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Yaron Barac; Nicolaas De Jonge; Maria Frigerio; Eva Goncalvesova; Israel Gotsman; Osnat Itzhaki Ben Zadok; Piotr Ponikowski; Luciano Potena; Arsen Ristic; Tiny Jaarsma; Tuvia Ben Gal Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: Elizabeth L Nichols; Glyn Elwyn; Anthony DiScipio; Mandeep S Sidhu; A James O'Malley; Daniel D Matlock; Shama Alam; Cathy S Ross; Megan Coylewright; David J Malenka; Jeremiah R Brown Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Sarah Chuzi; Adeboye Ogunseitan; Kenzie A Cameron; Kathleen Grady; Lauren Schulze; Jane E Wilcox Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 5.501