Rizzieri Aaron G, Verheijde Joseph L, Rady Mohamed Y, McGregor Joan L
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona 85054, USA.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008 Aug 11;3:20. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-3-20.
The left ventricular assist device was originally designed to be surgically implanted as a bridge to transplantation for patients with chronic end-stage heart failure. On the basis of the REMATCH trial, the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved permanent implantation of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy in Medicare beneficiaries who are not candidates for heart transplantation. The use of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy raises certain ethical challenges. Left ventricular assist devices can prolong the survival of average recipients compared with optimal medical management of chronic end-stage heart failure. However, the overall quality of life can be adversely affected in some recipients because of serious infections, neurologic complications, and device malfunction. Left ventricular assist devices alter end-of-life trajectories. The caregivers of recipients may experience significant burden (e.g., poor physical health, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder) from destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices. There are also social and financial ramifications for recipients and their families. We advocate early utilization of a palliative care approach and outline prerequisite conditions so that consenting for the use of a left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy is a well informed process. These conditions include: (1) direct participation of a multidisciplinary care team, including palliative care specialists, (2) a concise plan of care for anticipated device-related complications, (3) careful surveillance and counseling for caregiver burden, (4) advance-care planning for anticipated end-of-life trajectories and timing of device deactivation, and (5) a plan to address the long-term financial burden on patients, families, and caregivers.Short-term mechanical circulatory devices (e.g. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, etc.) can be initiated in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of ventricular assist devices in chronic end-stage heart failure. In the absence of first-person (patient) consent, presumed consent or surrogate consent should be used cautiously for the initiation of short-term mechanical circulatory devices in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of left ventricular assist devices. Future clinical studies of destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices should include measures of recipients' quality of end-of-life care and caregivers' burden.
左心室辅助装置最初设计为通过手术植入,作为慢性终末期心力衰竭患者移植的桥梁。基于“随机评价机械辅助装置治疗充血性心力衰竭”(REMATCH)试验,美国食品药品监督管理局和美国医疗保险与医疗补助服务中心批准将左心室辅助装置永久植入作为非心脏移植候选者的医疗保险受益人的终末期治疗。将左心室辅助装置用作终末期治疗引发了某些伦理挑战。与慢性终末期心力衰竭的最佳药物治疗相比,左心室辅助装置可延长普通接受者的生存期。然而,由于严重感染、神经并发症和装置故障,一些接受者的总体生活质量可能受到不利影响。左心室辅助装置改变了临终轨迹。接受者的护理人员可能会因左心室辅助装置的终末期治疗而承受重大负担(如身体健康不佳、抑郁、焦虑和创伤后应激障碍)。接受者及其家庭也会面临社会和经济方面的影响。我们提倡尽早采用姑息治疗方法并概述先决条件,以便同意将左心室辅助装置用作终末期治疗是一个充分知情的过程。这些条件包括:(1)多学科护理团队的直接参与,包括姑息治疗专家;(2)针对预期的与装置相关并发症的简明护理计划;(3)对护理人员负担进行仔细监测和咨询;(4)针对预期的临终轨迹和装置停用时间进行预先护理规划;(5)一项应对患者、家庭和护理人员长期经济负担的计划。短期机械循环装置(如经皮心肺旁路、经皮心室辅助装置等)可在紧急情况下启动,作为慢性终末期心力衰竭患者永久植入心室辅助装置的桥梁。在没有第一人称(患者)同意的情况下,在紧急情况下将短期机械循环装置作为永久植入左心室辅助装置的桥梁启动时,应谨慎使用推定同意或替代同意。未来关于左心室辅助装置终末期治疗的临床研究应包括接受者临终护理质量和护理人员负担的衡量指标。