Deactivating Pacemakers and ICDs

Pacing and Clinical …, 2008

Background: Clinicians may receive requests to deactivate pacemakers and implantable cardioverterdefibrillators (ICDs) in terminally ill patients. Methods: We describe practices and attitudes regarding deactivation of pacemakers and ICDs in terminally ill patients among physicians, nurses, and others who manage treatment of patients with implanted cardiac devices and among field representatives of device manufacturers. A Web-based survey was provided to Heart Rhythm Society members and to representatives of two manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices. Measurements were the answers of 787 respondents. Results: Of the respondents, 86.8% reported involvement in requests for ICD deactivation and 77.6% reported involvement in pacemaker deactivation (P < 0.001). Having cared for a terminally ill patient for whom the respondent or a physician had ordered device deactivation was common (95.4% for ICDs vs 84.8% for pacemakers; P < 0.001). Having personally deactivated a device was also common (92.4% for ICDs vs 76.6% for pacemakers; P < 0.001). More respondents said they were comfortable with personally deactivating an ICD than deactivating a pacemaker (56.7% for ICDs vs 34.4% for pacemakers; P < 0.001). Respondents reported that the industry representative is the individual who deactivates the device most of the time (59.3% for ICDs and 49.7% for pacemakers).

Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, 2009

Circulation: Heart Failure, 2012

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2009

A 68-year-old patient who suffered from gastric cancer diagnosed 8 months earlier presented with multiple peritoneal and hepatic metastasis, despite several rounds of chemo-and radiotherapy. After admission to hospital, his general condition quickly became severely compromised. He was nearly emaciated, despite being on partial parenteral feeding. Four years earlier, due to a cardiac arrhythmia that was refractory to medication, the patient had a cardiac pacemaker (CPM) implanted, regulated to go off at frequencies of below 70 beats per minute. Given the patient's terminal situation, the team started developing some doubts about the pacemaker's effects during his dying process. The patient had mentioned his intention to donate his pacemaker after his death, but had not asked for its deactivation. The specialists were not sure about the effect of the pacemaker in unnecessarily prolonging the patient's final hour. Nevertheless, they opposed deactivation, which they considered ethically uncertain. The family, who had been initially for the deactivation, decided against it. The patient's condition was progressively deteriorating, as he was falling into a state of sopor and, later, into a coma. This moribund phase stretched over 10 days, with a cardiac frequency invariably fixed at 70 beats per minute (BPM), which is explained by the action of the pacemaker.

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 2011

Population aging and broader indications for the implant of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are the main reasons for the continuous increase in the use of pacemakers (PMs), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P, CRT-D). The growing burden of comorbidities in CIED patients, the greater complexity of the devices, and the increased duration of procedures have led to an augmented risk of infections, which is out of proportion to the increase in implantation rate. CIED infections are an ominous condition, which often implies the necessity of hospitalization and carries an augmented risk of in-hospital death. Their clinical presentation may be either at pocket or at endocardial level, but they can also manifest themselves with lone bacteremia. The management of these infections requires the complete removal of the device and subsequent, specific, antibiotic therapy. CIED failures are monitored by competent public authorities, that require physicians to alert them to any failures, and that suggest the opportune strategies for their management. Although the replacement of all potentially affected devices is often suggested, common practice indicates the replacement of only a minority of devices, as close follow-up of the patients involved may be a safer strategy. Implantation of a PM or an ICD may cause problems in the patients' psychosocial adaptation and quality of life, and may contribute to the development of affective disorders. Clinicians are usually unaware of the psychosocial impact of implanted PMs and ICDs. The main difference between PM and ICD patients is the latter's dramatic experience of receiving a shock. Technological improvements and new clinical evidences may help reduce the total burden of shocks. A specific supporting team, providing psychosocial help, may contribute to improving patient quality of life.

Congestive Heart Failure, 2010

Background: Indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in heart failure (HF) are expanding and may include more than 1 million patients. This study examined patient expectations from ICDs for primary prevention of sudden death in HF. Methods and Results: Study participants (n 5 105) had an EF !35% and symptomatic HF, without history of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or syncope. Subjects completed a written survey about perceived ICD benefits, survival expectations, and circumstances under which they might deactivate defibrillation. Mean age was 58, LVEF 21%, 40% were New York Heart Association Class III-IV, and 65% already had a primary prevention ICD. Most patients anticipated more than10 years survival despite symptomatic HF. Nearly 54% expected an ICD to save $50 lives per 100 during 5 years. ICD recipients expressed more confidence that the device would save their own lives compared with those without an ICD (P ! .001). Despite understanding the ease of deactivation, 70% of ICD recipients indicated they would keep the ICD on even if dying of cancer, 55% even if having daily shocks, and none would inactivate defibrillation even if suffering constant dyspnea at rest. Conclusions: HF patients anticipate long survival, overestimate survival benefits conferred by ICDs, and express reluctance to deactivate their devices even for end-stage disease. (J Cardiac Fail 2010;16:106e113)

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2012

In spite of ethical analyses assimilating the palliative deactivation of pacemakers to commonly accepted withdrawings of life-sustaining therapy, many clinicians remain ethically uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation at the end of life. Various reasons have been posited for this discomfort. Some cardiologists have suggested that reluctance to deactivate pacemakers may stem from a sense that the pacemaker has become part of the patient&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;self.&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; The authors suggest that Daniel Sulmasy is correct to contend that any such identification of the pacemaker is misguided. The authors argue that clinicians uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation are nevertheless correct to see it as incompatible with the traditional medical ethics of withdrawal of support. Traditional medical ethics is presently taken by many to sanction pacemaker deactivation when such deactivation honors the patient&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s right to refuse treatment. The authors suggest that the right to refuse treatment applies to treatments involving ongoing physician agency. This right cannot underwrite patient demands that physicians reverse the effects of treatments previously administered, in which ongoing physician agency is no longer implicated. The permanently indwelling pacemaker is best seen as such a treatment. As such, its deactivation in the pacemaker-dependent patient is best seen not as withdrawal of support but as active ending of life. That being the case, clinicians adhering to the usual ethical analysis of withdrawal of support are correct to be uncomfortable with pacemaker deactivation at the end of life.

Anesthesiology, 1997

2011

| This Review examines recommendations and principles that promote good decision-making with regard to the insertion, deactivation, and potential malfunction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This guidance is important because ICDs are now used for primary and secondary prevention of arrhythmias in more than 20 diverse clinical populations, which accounts for the exponential increase in insertion rates over the past decade. Current guidelines require clinicians to provide personalized, culturally appropriate, and easy to understand information to patients on the benefits and harms of proposed treatment choices; however, obtaining valid informed consent for insertion and deactivation of ICDs is challenging. Initiating early conversations with patients and continuing this dialogue over time, implementation of localized care protocols, increased collaboration (particularly between cardiac and palliative care teams), and the provision of training for all health professionals involved in the care of these patients, can help to ensure that adequate informed consent is maintained throughout their care. In addition to providing information, health professionals should identify and address high levels of anxiety in patients and their next of kin and promote effective communication throughout decision making. In the future, use of standardized checklists or decision aids based on a clear understanding of the principles underlying key topics could support this process.