Are ICD recipients able to foresee if they want to withdraw therapy or deactivate defibrillator shocks?

Ingela Thylén , Debra K. Moser , Misook L. Chung , Jennifer Miller , Christina Fluur , Anna Strömberg
{"title":"Are ICD recipients able to foresee if they want to withdraw therapy or deactivate defibrillator shocks?","authors":"Ingela Thylén ,&nbsp;Debra K. Moser ,&nbsp;Misook L. Chung ,&nbsp;Jennifer Miller ,&nbsp;Christina Fluur ,&nbsp;Anna Strömberg","doi":"10.1016/j.ijchv.2013.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Expert consensus statements on management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) emphasize the importance of having discussions about deactivation before and after implantation. These statements were developed with limited patient input. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with patients' experiences of end-of-life discussions, attitudes towards such discussions, and attitudes towards withdrawal of therapy (i.e., generator replacement and deactivation) at end-of-life, in a large national cohort of ICD-recipients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We enrolled 3067 ICD-patients, administrating the End-of-Life-ICD-Questionnaire.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most (86%) had not discussed ICD-deactivation with their physician. Most (69%) thought discussions were best at end-of-life, but 40% stated that they never wanted the physician to initiate a discussion. Those unwilling to discuss deactivation were younger, had experienced battery replacement, had a longer time since implantation, and had better quality-of-life. Those with psychological morbidity were more likely to desire a discussion about deactivation. Many patients (39%) were unable to foresee what to decide about deactivation in an anticipated terminal condition. Women, those without depression, and those with worse ICD-related experiences were more indecisive about withdrawal of therapy. Irrespective of shock experiences, those who could take a stand regarding deactivation chose to keep shock therapies active in many cases (39%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite consensus statements recommending discussions about ICD-deactivation at the end-of-life, such discussion usually do not occur. There is substantial ambivalence and indecisiveness on the part of most ICD-patients in this nationwide survey about having these discussions and about expressing desires about deactivation in an anticipated end-of-life situation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90542,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijchv.2013.11.001","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214763213000047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Background

Expert consensus statements on management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) emphasize the importance of having discussions about deactivation before and after implantation. These statements were developed with limited patient input. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with patients' experiences of end-of-life discussions, attitudes towards such discussions, and attitudes towards withdrawal of therapy (i.e., generator replacement and deactivation) at end-of-life, in a large national cohort of ICD-recipients.

Methods

We enrolled 3067 ICD-patients, administrating the End-of-Life-ICD-Questionnaire.

Results

Most (86%) had not discussed ICD-deactivation with their physician. Most (69%) thought discussions were best at end-of-life, but 40% stated that they never wanted the physician to initiate a discussion. Those unwilling to discuss deactivation were younger, had experienced battery replacement, had a longer time since implantation, and had better quality-of-life. Those with psychological morbidity were more likely to desire a discussion about deactivation. Many patients (39%) were unable to foresee what to decide about deactivation in an anticipated terminal condition. Women, those without depression, and those with worse ICD-related experiences were more indecisive about withdrawal of therapy. Irrespective of shock experiences, those who could take a stand regarding deactivation chose to keep shock therapies active in many cases (39%).

Conclusions

Despite consensus statements recommending discussions about ICD-deactivation at the end-of-life, such discussion usually do not occur. There is substantial ambivalence and indecisiveness on the part of most ICD-patients in this nationwide survey about having these discussions and about expressing desires about deactivation in an anticipated end-of-life situation.

ICD受者是否能够预见他们是否想要停止治疗或停用除颤器电击?
关于植入式心律转复除颤器(ICDs)管理的专家共识声明强调了在植入前后讨论失活的重要性。这些陈述是在病人输入有限的情况下制定的。本研究的目的是在一个大型的国家icd接受者队列中,确定与患者临终讨论经历、对这种讨论的态度以及对生命末期退出治疗(即更换发电机和停用)的态度相关的因素。方法纳入3067例icd患者,进行临终icd问卷调查。结果大多数患者(86%)未与医生讨论过icd停用问题。大多数人(69%)认为在临终时进行讨论是最好的,但40%的人表示他们从不希望医生发起讨论。那些不愿意讨论停用问题的人更年轻,经历过电池更换,植入后使用时间更长,生活质量更好。那些有心理疾病的人更有可能希望讨论“失活”。许多患者(39%)无法预见在预期的晚期疾病中如何决定失活。女性,那些没有抑郁症的人,以及那些有更糟糕的icd相关经历的人,在退出治疗方面更加犹豫不决。无论休克经历如何,在许多情况下,那些可以对失活采取立场的人选择保持休克治疗的活性(39%)。结论:尽管一致建议在生命末期讨论icd的停用,但这样的讨论通常不会发生。在这项全国范围的调查中,大多数icd患者对于在预期的生命结束的情况下进行这些讨论和表达对停止活动的愿望有很大的矛盾和犹豫不决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信