Recovery of pacemakers and defibrillators for analysis and device advance directives: electrophysiologists' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Following high-profile device failures, the Heart Rhythm Society emphasized the need for postmarketing surveillance by recommending that physicians return all explanted devices to the manufacturer for analysis. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of electrophysiologists (EPs) regarding recovery for analysis of explanted pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (devices), and attitudes toward device-specific advance directives to facilitate return of devices. Online survey invitations were sent in four waves from December 2008 to June 2009 to 300 e-mail addresses from the Heart Rhythm Society member database. RESULTS: From 250 invitations, there were 95 responses (38%). Demographics included average age 50 years (range, 31-87); 95% male; 81% Caucasian. Only 23% reported returning all explanted devices to the manufacturers. Of all the respondents, 32% discarded >10 devices/year as medical waste, 42% stored devices in a box in the electrophysiology lab, and 10% donated at least 1 device/year to charity for reuse overseas. Sixty-seven percent felt that it would not be helpful to have an advance directive specifying what the patient would want done with their device postmortem. CONCLUSIONS: Few EPs return all explanted devices or send interrogation reports to the manufacturers, though nearly all said it was easy to do so. A majority either dispose of explanted devices as medical waste or store them in laboratories or offices, and a small percentage donate for reuse in underserved nations or to veterinary hospitals. This study suggests a need for initiatives such as educational campaigns to increase the retrieval and return of devices, either for analysis or reuse.

Deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in terminal illness and end of life care.

Cardiology professional societies have recommended that patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices complete advance directives (ADs). However, physicians rarely discuss end of life handling of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and standard AD forms do not address the presence of ICDs. We conducted a telephone survey of 278 patients with an ICD from a large, academic hospital. The average period since implantation was 5.15 years. More than 1/3 (38%) had been shocked, with a mean of 4.69 shocks. More than 1/2 had executed an AD, but only 3 had included a plan for their ICD. Most subjects (86%) had never considered what to do with their ICD if they had a serious illness and were unlikely to survive. When asked about ICD deactivation in an end of life situation, 42% said it would depend, 28% favored deactivation, and 11% would not deactivate. One quarter (26%) thought ICD deactivation was a form of assisted suicide, 22% thought a do not resuscitate order did not mean that the ICD should be deactivated, and 46% responded that the ICD should not be automatically deactivated in hospice. The answers did not correlate with any demographic factors. Almost all (95%) agreed that patients should have the opportunity to execute an AD that directs handing of an ICD. When asked who should be responsible for discussing this device for an AD, 31% said electrophysiologists, 45% said general cardiologists, and 14% said primary care physicians. In conclusion, the results of the present study highlight the lack of consensus among patients with an ICD on the issue of deactivation at the end of a patient's life. These findings suggest cardiologists should discuss end of life care and device deactivation with their patients with an ICD.