This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1049909108320885v1 25/6/440    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kelley, A. S. Articles by Carrington Reid, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kelley, A. S. Articles by Carrington Reid, M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Management of Patients with ICDs at the End of Life (EOL): A Qualitative Study

Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, akelley{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Sonal S. Mehta, MD

Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York

M. Carrington Reid, PhD, MD

Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York

Purpose. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks at the end of life are distressing and warrant consideration of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation discussions. A nationwide survey collected physicians' comments regarding such discussions.

Methods. Vignettes ascertained respondents' practices regarding implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation discussions. Respondents' comments were analyzed to identify themes.

Results. About 177 respondents (32%) provided 310 comments. One third reported that initiating the discussion would depend on specific circumstances, such as do not resuscitate status (35%); 21% advocated life-prolonging therapies; 17% said the patient/family or another physician should initiate the discussion; and 9% expressed inadequate education/awareness about implantable cardioverter defibrillator functions. Geriatricians and general internists expressed inadequate knowledge most frequently (12 writers, 75% in this theme), while electrophysiologists most frequently suggested further treatments/procedures (22 writers, 58%), and another doctor (13 writers, 76%) or the patient (8 writers, 62%) should begin the discussion. Conclusions. Improving the end of life care for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators will require additional physician education and increased commitment by subspecialists to deactivation discussions.

Key Words: implantable cardioverter defibrillator • terminal care • physician—patient communication • medical decision making • physician survey • qualitative methods

This version was published on January 1, 2009

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, Vol. 25, No. 6, 440-446 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1049909108320885


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?