“Just Because We Can Doesn’t Mean We Should”: views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
- First Online:
- 383 Downloads
This study aims to identify nurses’ concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).
We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management.
Fourteen nurses described the informed consent process as overly focused on procedures, with inadequate coverage of living with a device (e.g., infection risks and device shocks). Elderly patients were especially vulnerable to physician or family pressure about CIED implantation. Nurses believed that initial advance care planning discussions were infrequent and rarely revisited when health status changed. Many patients did not know that CIEDs could be deactivated; it was often addressed reactively (i.e., after multiple shocks) or when patients became too ill to participate in decision making. Nurses generally were supportive of CIED deactivation when it was requested by a well-informed patient. However, nurses distinguished between withholding versus withdrawing treatment (i.e., turning off CIEDs vs. declining implantation). Although most patients viewed their device as lifesaving, others perceived them as a “ticking time bomb.”
Nurses identified concerns about CIED decision making from implantation through end-of-life care and device deactivation and suggested avenues for improving patient care including early and regular advance care planning.
KeywordsDevice deactivation Ethics Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators Nursing Pacemakers
Cardiovascular implantable electronic device
- 1.Epstein, A. E., DiMarco, J. P., Ellenbogen, K. A., Estes, N. A. 3rd., Freedman, R. A., Gettes, L. S., et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices); American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons. (2008) ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation, 117(21):e350–408. Epub 2008 May 15. Erratum in: Circulation, 2009 120(5):e34–5Google Scholar
- 2.Mond, H. G., Irwin, M., Ector, H., & Proclemer, A. (2008). The world survey of cardiac pacing and cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2005 an International Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology Society (ICPES) project. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 31(9), 1202–1212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Lampert, R., Hayes, D. L., Annas, G. J., Farley, M. A., Goldstein, N. E., Hamilton, R. M., et al; American College of Cardiology; American Geriatrics Society; American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Heart Association; Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association. (2010). HRS expert consensus statement on the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Heart Rhythm, 7(7), 1008–1026.Google Scholar
- 8.Goldstein, N. E., Mehta, D., Teitelbaum, E., Bradley, E. H., & Morrison, R. S. (2008). “It’s like crossing a bridge” complexities preventing physicians from discussing deactivation of implantable defibrillators at the end of life. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(Suppl 1), 2–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. c2005.Google Scholar
- 15.Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A., editors. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; c2009. p. 4–6.Google Scholar
- 16.Clarke, A. E. Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; c2005.Google Scholar
- 17.Strauss, A. L. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press; c1987.Google Scholar
- 20.Sherazi, S., Daubert, J. P., Block, R. C., Jeevanantham, V., Abdel-Gadir, K., DiSalle, M. R., et al. (2008). Physicians’ preferences and attitudes about end-of-life care in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 83(10), 1139–1141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Padeletti, L., Arnar, D. O., Boncinelli, L., Brachman, J., Camm, J. A., Daubert, J. C., et al. (2010). EHRA expert consensus statement on the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Europace, 12(10), 1480–1489. Epub 2010 Jul 30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar