Treating or Killing? The Divergent Moral Implications of Cardiac Device Deactivation.

In this article, I argue that there is a moral difference between deactivating an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and turning off a cardiac pacemaker (CP). It is, at least in most cases, morally permissible to deactivate an ICD. It is not, at least in most cases, morally permissible to turn off a pacemaker in a fully or significantly pacemaker-dependent patient. After describing the relevant medical technologies-pacemakers and ICDs-I continue with contrasting perspectives on the issue of deactivation from practitioners involved with these devices: physicians, nurses, and allied professionals. Next, I offer a few possible analyses of the situation, relying on recent work in medical ethics. Considerations of intention, responsibility, and replacement support my distinguishing between ICDs and CPs. I conclude by recommending a change in policy of one of the leading cardiac societies.

Ethics and the cardiac pacemaker: more than just end-of-life issues.

For many years, ethical debate about pacemakers has focused on whether and under what circumstances they may be turned off in end of life care. Several other important ethical issues have been neglected, perhaps because the dilemmas they pose for cardiologists are not so immediate. These include: potential conflicts of interest, particularly those arising from the role of industry employed allied professionals (IEAPs) in pacemaker care; unanticipated impacts of commercial competition and the device improvement cycle; risks associated with remotely accessible software; equity in access to healthcare; and questions about reuse of explanted pacemakers in low and middle income countries. This paper analyses these issues in order to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to ethics and the cardiac pacemaker. Cardiologists should be aware of all of these issues and contribute to ongoing discussions about how they are resolved.

Ethical considerations for turning off pacemakers and defibrillators.

The 2010 guidelines regarding management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) conclude that patient requests to deactivate these devices at the end of life should be honored. Nevertheless, many clinicians and patients report feeling uncomfortable discontinuing such therapies, particularly pacemakers. If the principles of clinical ethics are followed, turning off CIEDs at the end of life is morally permissible. Clinicians managing CIEDs should discuss the option of deactivation with the patient at the time of implantation and be prepared to reopen the question as warranted by the patient's clinical course and respect for the patient's authentic values.

[Dying with/despite a pacemaker]. / Sterben mit/trotz Schrittmachers.

Death of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) is a common scenario in the ICU. Given the demographic trends and the increasing implantation rate of such devices reinforces the fact that ICU physicians must be aware of the burden and consequences of these systems in the end of life care of dying patients. The possible deactivation of a CIED confronts the responsible physicians with particularly complex clinical, ethical, and legal problems. Most deaths are often preceded by a long illness trajectory and finally by altering the therapeutic goals. Withholding or withdrawing therapy are the results of these processes. General agreement exists that ICD deactivation in dying patients may be ethically permissible. The patient's consent is mandatory. The practices and attitudes associated with pacemaker deactivation differ significantly from those associated with ICD deactivation. It is therefore crucial to be aware of the legal situation in the jurisdiction in which the physician is practicing. The decision to deactivate CIEDs should be part of a well deliberated and transparent process. Ethical and legal guidance should be readily available to counsel and support these difficult decisions.

Ethical issues and palliative care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit.

Medical advances over the past 50 years have helped countless patients with advanced cardiac disease or who are critically ill in the intensive care unit (ICU), but have added to the ethical complexity of the care provided by clinicians, particularly at the end of life. Palliative care has the primary aim of improving symptom burden, quality of life, and the congruence of the medical plan with a patient's goals of care. This article explores ethical issues encountered in the cardiac ICU, discusses key analyses of these issues, and addresses how palliative care might assist medical teams in approaching these challenges.

Manuseio de portadores de dispositivos cardíacos implantáveis com arritmias atriais: uma revisão / Management of patients with implantable cardiac devices and atrial arrhythmias: a review

O manuseio do portador de dispositivos cardíacos implantáveis com arritmias atriais envolve profilaxia de eventos tromboembólicos, controle do ritmo ou da frequência cardíaca, cuidados com a anticoagulação e programação adequada. Esta revisão tem como objetivo avaliar o uso desses dispositivos na detecção de arritmias atriais, bem como a anticoagulação oral em seus portadores e o manuseio perioperatório de tais fármacos em implantes, revisões ou trocas de geradores de pulsos. Cuidados com a programação dos dispositivos, bem como a utilidade dos algoritmos de estimulação atrial rápida na interrupção de arritmias atriais também são destacados.

The management of patients with implantable cardiac devices and atrial arrhythmias involves the prophylaxis of thromboembolic events, heart rate or rhythm control, anticoagulation care and appropriate programming. This review aims to evaluate the use of these devices to detect atrial arrhythmias as well as oral anticoagulation in the patients and the peri-operative management of these drugs in the implants, reviews or exchange of pulse generators. Appropriate programming of the devices and the use of atrial overdrive pacing to prevent atrial tachycardia are also highlighted.

Ethical considerations for discontinuing pacemakers and automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators at the end-of-life.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the use of intracardiac devices has increased, the awareness of the burdens of the devices, especially the uncomfortable defibrillator shocks, has also increased. Some patients have requested device deactivation and some physicians have expressed reluctance to do so. This review will update physicians about the ethical acceptability of removal of intracardiac devices. RECENT FINDINGS: The American Heart Rhythm Society released a consensus statement about the ethical removal of intracardiac devices. Subsequent surveys of patients and physicians demonstrate significant misunderstandings about deactivation. SUMMARY: Physicians ought to initiate a deactivation conversation, ideally at the time of implantation. Sharing case studies about the deactivation process will enable physicians to enhance their ability to guide patients and family through thoughtful decision-making. Guidelines for deactivation should be promulgated throughout institutions that serve patients with intracardiac devices.

Deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), are the most effective treatment for life-threatening arrhythmias. Patients or their surrogates may request device deactivation to avoid prolongation of the dying process or in other settings, such as after device-related complications or with changes in health care goals. Despite published guidelines outlining theoretical and practical aspects of this common clinical scenario, significant uncertainty remains for both patients and health care providers regarding the ethical and legal status of CIED deactivation. This review outlines the ethical and legal principles supporting CIED deactivation, centered upon patient autonomy and authority over their own medical treatment. The empirical literature describing stakeholder views and experiences surrounding CIED deactivation is described, along with implications of these studies for future research surrounding the care of patients with CIEDs.

Pacemaker deactivation: withdrawal of support or active ending of life?

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's "self." 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'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.

The ethics of deactivating a pacemaker in a pacing-dependent patient: reflections on a case study.

The decision to deactivate a pacemaker in a pacing-dependent patient is troubling for some health professionals who may regard such interventions as hastening death and therefore ethically impermissible. This may be especially concerning in situations where a patient is unable to clearly state what their preferences may be and the decision--were it to be made--will almost certainly result in the patient's immediate death. In this discussion, we reflect on some of the ethical aspects that arise when JP, a 75-year-old woman who is pacing dependent, suffers a significant brain injury, and the family request that her pacemaker be deactivated. Taking into account the clinical reality of her situation, the united wishes and loving concern of her husband and family, and their substituted judgment regarding her likely preferences, we claim that the decision to deactivate her pacemaker was ethically sound.

"Just Because We Can Doesn't Mean We Should": views of nurses on deactivation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

PURPOSE: This study aims to identify nurses' concerns about the clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of deactivating cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: We used focus groups to discuss decision making in CIED management. RESULTS: 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." CONCLUSIONS: 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.

"I felt like the angel of death": role conflicts and moral distress among allied professionals employed by the US cardiovascular implantable electronic device industry.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify themes associated with role conflicts and moral distress experienced by cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) industry-employed allied professionals (IEAPs) in the clinical setting. METHODS: Focus groups were used to elicit perspectives from IEAPs who had deactivated a CIED. RESULTS: Seventeen IEAPs (five women) reported increased clinical presence and work-related role conflicts and moral distress along several themes: (1) relationships with patients, (2) relationships with clinicians, (3) role ambiguity, (4) customer service to clinicians, and (5) CIED deactivation. Patients often misperceived IEAPs as physicians or nurses. Many physicians expected IEAPs to perform clinical duties. Customer service obligations exacerbated IEAP role conflicts and moral distress because of dual agency. IEAPs commonly received and carried out requests to deactivate CIEDs; doing so, however, generated considerable distress-particularly deactivations of pacemakers in pacemaker-dependent patients. Several described themselves as "angels of death." IEAPs had recommendations for mitigating role conflicts and moral distress, including improving the deactivation process. CONCLUSIONS: IEAPs experienced role conflicts and moral distress regarding their activities in the clinical setting and customer service obligations. Health care institutions should develop and enforce clear boundaries between IEAPs and clinicians in the clinical setting. Clinicians and IEAPs should adhere to these boundaries.

The ethics of pacemaker deactivation in terminally ill patients.

A core principle of American medical ethics holds that an informed and capacitated patient has the right to have treatments withdrawn or withheld. Nevertheless, many clinicians remain reluctant to honor a request to deactivate a patient's pacemaker. This article describes a case in which a patient was denied her request for pacemaker deactivation. Several reasons for this reluctance are discussed, including historical, practical, and ethical considerations for opposing pacemaker deactivation. Ultimately, however, from an ethical standpoint, pacemaker deactivation is similar to withdrawal of other therapies. Fortunately, a recent expert consensus statement supports a patient's right to have her pacemaker deactivated. Pacemaker deactivation should only be performed after robust informed consent, which must include discussion of risks, benefits, and all viable alternatives based on the patient's values and goals.

Ethical and legal views regarding deactivation of cardiac implantable electrical devices in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Little is known about patients' views surrounding the ethical and legal aspects of managing pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) near the end of life. Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) are at heightened risk of sudden cardiac death and are common recipients of such devices. Patients with HC recruited from the membership of the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association were surveyed about their clinical histories, advance care planning, legal knowledge, and ethical beliefs relating to the withdrawal of PM and ICD therapy. The mean age of the 546 patients was 49.1 years, 47% were women, and 57% had ICDs. Only 46% of the respondents had completed an advance directive, only 51% had a healthcare proxy, and cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) were commonly not addressed in either (92% and 58%, respectively). Many patients characterized deactivating PMs or ICDs as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (29% for PMs and 17% for ICDs), and >50% expressed uncertainty regarding the legality of device deactivation. Patients viewed deactivation of ICDs and PMs as morally different from other life-sustaining therapies such as mechanical ventilation and dialysis, and these views varied substantially according to the CIED type (p <0.0001). The respondents expressed concerns regarding clinical conflicts related to religion, ethical and legal uncertainty, and informed consent. In conclusion, patients who have, or are eligible to receive, CIEDs might require improved advance care planning and education regarding the ethical and legal options for managing CIEDs at the end of life.