Patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at the end of life

Loreena Hill, Sonja McIlfatrick, Brian Taylor, lana Dixon, Mark Harbison, Donna Fitzsimons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Individualised care at the end of life requires professional understanding of the patient’s perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the evidence on patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life. Design: Systematic narrative review of empirical studies was published during 2008–2014. Data Sources: Data were collected from six databases, citations from relevant articles and expert recommendations. Results: In all, 18 studies included with collective population of n = 5810. Concept mapping highlighted three themes: (1) Diverse preferences regarding discussion and deactivation. Deactivation was rarely discussed pre-implantation, with some studies demonstrating patients’ reluctance to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at any stage. Two studies found the majority of patients valued such discussions. Diversity was reflected in patients’ willingness to deactivate, ranging from 12% (n = 9) in Irish cohort to 79% (n = 195) in Dutch study. (2) Ethical and legal considerations were predominant in Canadian and American literature as patients wanted to contribute but felt the decision should be a doctor’s responsibility. Advance directives were uncommon in Europe, and where they existed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not mentioned. (3) ‘Living in the now’ was evident as despite deteriorating symptoms many patients maintained a positive outlook and anticipated surviving more than 10 years. Several studies asserted living longer was more important than quality of life. Conclusion: Patients regard the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a complex and solely beneficial device, with little insight regarding its potential impact on a peaceful death. This review confirms the need for professionals to discuss with patients and families implantable cardioverter defibrillator functionality and deactivation at appropriate opportunities.
LanguageEnglish
JournalPalliative Medicine
Volume28
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Sep 2014

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Advance Directives
Terminal Care
Information Storage and Retrieval
Quality of Life
Databases
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

@article{45a5b46f40fd4c5696dd35c6322b08d8,
title = "Patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at the end of life",
abstract = "Background: Individualised care at the end of life requires professional understanding of the patient’s perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the evidence on patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life. Design: Systematic narrative review of empirical studies was published during 2008–2014. Data Sources: Data were collected from six databases, citations from relevant articles and expert recommendations. Results: In all, 18 studies included with collective population of n = 5810. Concept mapping highlighted three themes: (1) Diverse preferences regarding discussion and deactivation. Deactivation was rarely discussed pre-implantation, with some studies demonstrating patients’ reluctance to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at any stage. Two studies found the majority of patients valued such discussions. Diversity was reflected in patients’ willingness to deactivate, ranging from 12{\%} (n = 9) in Irish cohort to 79{\%} (n = 195) in Dutch study. (2) Ethical and legal considerations were predominant in Canadian and American literature as patients wanted to contribute but felt the decision should be a doctor’s responsibility. Advance directives were uncommon in Europe, and where they existed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not mentioned. (3) ‘Living in the now’ was evident as despite deteriorating symptoms many patients maintained a positive outlook and anticipated surviving more than 10 years. Several studies asserted living longer was more important than quality of life. Conclusion: Patients regard the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a complex and solely beneficial device, with little insight regarding its potential impact on a peaceful death. This review confirms the need for professionals to discuss with patients and families implantable cardioverter defibrillator functionality and deactivation at appropriate opportunities.",
author = "Loreena Hill and Sonja McIlfatrick and Brian Taylor and lana Dixon and Mark Harbison and Donna Fitzsimons",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1177/0269216314550374",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
journal = "Palliative Medicine",
issn = "0269-2163",

}

Patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at the end of life. / Hill, Loreena; McIlfatrick, Sonja; Taylor, Brian; Dixon, lana; Harbison, Mark; Fitzsimons, Donna.

In: Palliative Medicine, Vol. 28, 19.09.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at the end of life

AU - Hill, Loreena

AU - McIlfatrick, Sonja

AU - Taylor, Brian

AU - Dixon, lana

AU - Harbison, Mark

AU - Fitzsimons, Donna

PY - 2014/9/19

Y1 - 2014/9/19

N2 - Background: Individualised care at the end of life requires professional understanding of the patient’s perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the evidence on patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life. Design: Systematic narrative review of empirical studies was published during 2008–2014. Data Sources: Data were collected from six databases, citations from relevant articles and expert recommendations. Results: In all, 18 studies included with collective population of n = 5810. Concept mapping highlighted three themes: (1) Diverse preferences regarding discussion and deactivation. Deactivation was rarely discussed pre-implantation, with some studies demonstrating patients’ reluctance to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at any stage. Two studies found the majority of patients valued such discussions. Diversity was reflected in patients’ willingness to deactivate, ranging from 12% (n = 9) in Irish cohort to 79% (n = 195) in Dutch study. (2) Ethical and legal considerations were predominant in Canadian and American literature as patients wanted to contribute but felt the decision should be a doctor’s responsibility. Advance directives were uncommon in Europe, and where they existed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not mentioned. (3) ‘Living in the now’ was evident as despite deteriorating symptoms many patients maintained a positive outlook and anticipated surviving more than 10 years. Several studies asserted living longer was more important than quality of life. Conclusion: Patients regard the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a complex and solely beneficial device, with little insight regarding its potential impact on a peaceful death. This review confirms the need for professionals to discuss with patients and families implantable cardioverter defibrillator functionality and deactivation at appropriate opportunities.

AB - Background: Individualised care at the end of life requires professional understanding of the patient’s perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the evidence on patients’ perception of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life. Design: Systematic narrative review of empirical studies was published during 2008–2014. Data Sources: Data were collected from six databases, citations from relevant articles and expert recommendations. Results: In all, 18 studies included with collective population of n = 5810. Concept mapping highlighted three themes: (1) Diverse preferences regarding discussion and deactivation. Deactivation was rarely discussed pre-implantation, with some studies demonstrating patients’ reluctance to discuss implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at any stage. Two studies found the majority of patients valued such discussions. Diversity was reflected in patients’ willingness to deactivate, ranging from 12% (n = 9) in Irish cohort to 79% (n = 195) in Dutch study. (2) Ethical and legal considerations were predominant in Canadian and American literature as patients wanted to contribute but felt the decision should be a doctor’s responsibility. Advance directives were uncommon in Europe, and where they existed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was not mentioned. (3) ‘Living in the now’ was evident as despite deteriorating symptoms many patients maintained a positive outlook and anticipated surviving more than 10 years. Several studies asserted living longer was more important than quality of life. Conclusion: Patients regard the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a complex and solely beneficial device, with little insight regarding its potential impact on a peaceful death. This review confirms the need for professionals to discuss with patients and families implantable cardioverter defibrillator functionality and deactivation at appropriate opportunities.

U2 - 10.1177/0269216314550374

DO - 10.1177/0269216314550374

M3 - Article

VL - 28

JO - Palliative Medicine

T2 - Palliative Medicine

JF - Palliative Medicine

SN - 0269-2163

ER -