Perspectives on withdrawing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter- defibrillator therapies at end of life: Results of a survey of medical and legal professionals and patients

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients regarding the withdrawal of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker therapy at the end of life. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A survey regarding 5 cases that focused on withdrawal of ICD or pacemaker therapy at the end of life was constructed and sent to 5270 medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients. The survey was administered from March 1, 2008, to March 1, 2009. RESULTS: Of the 5270 recipients of the survey, 658 (12%) responded. In a terminally ill patient requesting that his ICD be turned off, most legal professionals (90% [63/70]), medical professionals (98% [330/336]), and patients (85% [200/236]) agreed the ICD should be turned off. Most legal professionals (89%), medical professionals (87%), and patients (79%) also considered withdrawal of pacemaker therapy in a non-pacemaker-dependent patient appropriate. However, significantly more legal (81%) than medical professionals (58%; P<.001) or patients (68%, P=.02) agreed with turning off a pacemaker in the pacemaker-dependent patient. A similar number of legal professionals thought turning off a device was legal regardless of whether it was an ICD or pacemaker (45% vs 38%; P=.50). However, medical professionals were more likely to perceive turning off an ICD as legal than turning off a pacemaker (85% vs 41%; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Most respondents thought device therapy should be withdrawn if the patient requested its withdrawal at the end of life. However, opinions of medical professionals and patients tended to be dependent on the type of device, with turning off ICDs being perceived as more acceptable than turning off pacemakers, whereas legal professionals tended to perceive all devices as similar. Thus, education and discussion regarding managing devices at the end of life are important when having end-of-life discussions and making end-of-life decisions to better understand patients' perceptions and expectations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)981-990
Number of pages10
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume85
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics
Surveys and Questionnaires
Terminally Ill
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{430d8c0e2d4346d7bd02216883782888,
title = "Perspectives on withdrawing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter- defibrillator therapies at end of life: Results of a survey of medical and legal professionals and patients",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients regarding the withdrawal of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker therapy at the end of life. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A survey regarding 5 cases that focused on withdrawal of ICD or pacemaker therapy at the end of life was constructed and sent to 5270 medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients. The survey was administered from March 1, 2008, to March 1, 2009. RESULTS: Of the 5270 recipients of the survey, 658 (12{\%}) responded. In a terminally ill patient requesting that his ICD be turned off, most legal professionals (90{\%} [63/70]), medical professionals (98{\%} [330/336]), and patients (85{\%} [200/236]) agreed the ICD should be turned off. Most legal professionals (89{\%}), medical professionals (87{\%}), and patients (79{\%}) also considered withdrawal of pacemaker therapy in a non-pacemaker-dependent patient appropriate. However, significantly more legal (81{\%}) than medical professionals (58{\%}; P<.001) or patients (68{\%}, P=.02) agreed with turning off a pacemaker in the pacemaker-dependent patient. A similar number of legal professionals thought turning off a device was legal regardless of whether it was an ICD or pacemaker (45{\%} vs 38{\%}; P=.50). However, medical professionals were more likely to perceive turning off an ICD as legal than turning off a pacemaker (85{\%} vs 41{\%}; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Most respondents thought device therapy should be withdrawn if the patient requested its withdrawal at the end of life. However, opinions of medical professionals and patients tended to be dependent on the type of device, with turning off ICDs being perceived as more acceptable than turning off pacemakers, whereas legal professionals tended to perceive all devices as similar. Thus, education and discussion regarding managing devices at the end of life are important when having end-of-life discussions and making end-of-life decisions to better understand patients' perceptions and expectations.",
author = "Suraj Kapa and Paul Mueller and Hayes, {David L.} and Asirvatham, {Samuel J}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.4065/mcp.2010.0431",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "981--990",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perspectives on withdrawing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter- defibrillator therapies at end of life

T2 - Results of a survey of medical and legal professionals and patients

AU - Kapa, Suraj

AU - Mueller, Paul

AU - Hayes, David L.

AU - Asirvatham, Samuel J

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients regarding the withdrawal of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker therapy at the end of life. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A survey regarding 5 cases that focused on withdrawal of ICD or pacemaker therapy at the end of life was constructed and sent to 5270 medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients. The survey was administered from March 1, 2008, to March 1, 2009. RESULTS: Of the 5270 recipients of the survey, 658 (12%) responded. In a terminally ill patient requesting that his ICD be turned off, most legal professionals (90% [63/70]), medical professionals (98% [330/336]), and patients (85% [200/236]) agreed the ICD should be turned off. Most legal professionals (89%), medical professionals (87%), and patients (79%) also considered withdrawal of pacemaker therapy in a non-pacemaker-dependent patient appropriate. However, significantly more legal (81%) than medical professionals (58%; P<.001) or patients (68%, P=.02) agreed with turning off a pacemaker in the pacemaker-dependent patient. A similar number of legal professionals thought turning off a device was legal regardless of whether it was an ICD or pacemaker (45% vs 38%; P=.50). However, medical professionals were more likely to perceive turning off an ICD as legal than turning off a pacemaker (85% vs 41%; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Most respondents thought device therapy should be withdrawn if the patient requested its withdrawal at the end of life. However, opinions of medical professionals and patients tended to be dependent on the type of device, with turning off ICDs being perceived as more acceptable than turning off pacemakers, whereas legal professionals tended to perceive all devices as similar. Thus, education and discussion regarding managing devices at the end of life are important when having end-of-life discussions and making end-of-life decisions to better understand patients' perceptions and expectations.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients regarding the withdrawal of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker therapy at the end of life. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A survey regarding 5 cases that focused on withdrawal of ICD or pacemaker therapy at the end of life was constructed and sent to 5270 medical professionals, legal professionals, and patients. The survey was administered from March 1, 2008, to March 1, 2009. RESULTS: Of the 5270 recipients of the survey, 658 (12%) responded. In a terminally ill patient requesting that his ICD be turned off, most legal professionals (90% [63/70]), medical professionals (98% [330/336]), and patients (85% [200/236]) agreed the ICD should be turned off. Most legal professionals (89%), medical professionals (87%), and patients (79%) also considered withdrawal of pacemaker therapy in a non-pacemaker-dependent patient appropriate. However, significantly more legal (81%) than medical professionals (58%; P<.001) or patients (68%, P=.02) agreed with turning off a pacemaker in the pacemaker-dependent patient. A similar number of legal professionals thought turning off a device was legal regardless of whether it was an ICD or pacemaker (45% vs 38%; P=.50). However, medical professionals were more likely to perceive turning off an ICD as legal than turning off a pacemaker (85% vs 41%; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Most respondents thought device therapy should be withdrawn if the patient requested its withdrawal at the end of life. However, opinions of medical professionals and patients tended to be dependent on the type of device, with turning off ICDs being perceived as more acceptable than turning off pacemakers, whereas legal professionals tended to perceive all devices as similar. Thus, education and discussion regarding managing devices at the end of life are important when having end-of-life discussions and making end-of-life decisions to better understand patients' perceptions and expectations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78149301262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78149301262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4065/mcp.2010.0431

DO - 10.4065/mcp.2010.0431

M3 - Article

C2 - 20843982

AN - SCOPUS:78149301262

VL - 85

SP - 981

EP - 990

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 11

ER -