Warren D. Backman, Michael V. DiCaro, Xintong Zuo, Adelqui Peralta, Ariela R. Orkaby
{"title":"Aligning goals with care: Advance directives in older adults with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators","authors":"Warren D. Backman, Michael V. DiCaro, Xintong Zuo, Adelqui Peralta, Ariela R. Orkaby","doi":"10.1111/pace.14983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundPatients ≥80 with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) have high rates of hospitalization and mortality, yet few have documented advance directives. We sought to determine the prevalence of advance directives in adults ≥80 years with ICDs, focusing on those with frailty and cognitive impairment.MethodsProspective cohort study (July 2016–May 2019) in an electrophysiology clinic. Presence of advance directives (health care proxies [HCP] and living wills [LW], or medical orders for life‐sustaining treatment [MOLST]) was determined by medical record review. Frailty and cognitive impairment were screened using 4‐m gait speed and Mini‐Cog.Results77 Veterans were evaluated. Mean age 84 years, 100% male, 70% frail. Overall, 52 (68%) had an HCP and 37 (48%) had a LW/MOLST. Of 67 with cognitive testing, 36% were impaired. HCP documentation was similar among frail and non‐frail (69% vs. 65%). LW/MOLST was more prevalent among frail versus non‐frail (52% vs. 39%). There was no difference in HCP documentation by cognitive status (67%). A LW/MOLST was more frequent for cognitively impaired versus non‐impaired (50% vs. 42%). Among 19 Veterans who were frail and cognitively impaired, 14 (74%) had an HCP and 11 (58%) had a LW/MOLST.ConclusionsMost Veterans had a documented advance directive, but a significant minority did not. Simple frailty and cognitive screening tools can rapidly identify patients for whom discussion of advance directives is especially important.","PeriodicalId":19650,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundPatients ≥80 with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) have high rates of hospitalization and mortality, yet few have documented advance directives. We sought to determine the prevalence of advance directives in adults ≥80 years with ICDs, focusing on those with frailty and cognitive impairment.MethodsProspective cohort study (July 2016–May 2019) in an electrophysiology clinic. Presence of advance directives (health care proxies [HCP] and living wills [LW], or medical orders for life‐sustaining treatment [MOLST]) was determined by medical record review. Frailty and cognitive impairment were screened using 4‐m gait speed and Mini‐Cog.Results77 Veterans were evaluated. Mean age 84 years, 100% male, 70% frail. Overall, 52 (68%) had an HCP and 37 (48%) had a LW/MOLST. Of 67 with cognitive testing, 36% were impaired. HCP documentation was similar among frail and non‐frail (69% vs. 65%). LW/MOLST was more prevalent among frail versus non‐frail (52% vs. 39%). There was no difference in HCP documentation by cognitive status (67%). A LW/MOLST was more frequent for cognitively impaired versus non‐impaired (50% vs. 42%). Among 19 Veterans who were frail and cognitively impaired, 14 (74%) had an HCP and 11 (58%) had a LW/MOLST.ConclusionsMost Veterans had a documented advance directive, but a significant minority did not. Simple frailty and cognitive screening tools can rapidly identify patients for whom discussion of advance directives is especially important.