Thylén Ingela, Moser Debra K, Chung Misook L, Miller Jennifer, Fluur Christina, Strömberg Anna
Division of Nursing Sciences, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Department of Cardiology, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Cardiology, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
Int J Cardiol Heart Vessel. 2013 Nov 13;1:22-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchv.2013.11.001. eCollection 2013 Dec.
Expert consensus statements on management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) emphasize the importance of having discussions about deactivation before and after implantation. These statements were developed with limited patient input. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with patients' experiences of end-of-life discussions, attitudes towards such discussions, and attitudes towards withdrawal of therapy (i.e., generator replacement and deactivation) at end-of-life, in a large national cohort of ICD-recipients.
We enrolled 3067 ICD-patients, administrating the End-of-Life-ICD-Questionnaire.
Most (86%) had not discussed ICD-deactivation with their physician. Most (69%) thought discussions were best at end-of-life, but 40% stated that they never wanted the physician to initiate a discussion. Those unwilling to discuss deactivation were younger, had experienced battery replacement, had a longer time since implantation, and had better quality-of-life. Those with psychological morbidity were more likely to desire a discussion about deactivation. Many patients (39%) were unable to foresee what to decide about deactivation in an anticipated terminal condition. Women, those without depression, and those with worse ICD-related experiences were more indecisive about withdrawal of therapy. Irrespective of shock experiences, those who could take a stand regarding deactivation chose to keep shock therapies active in many cases (39%).
Despite consensus statements recommending discussions about ICD-deactivation at the end-of-life, such discussion usually do not occur. There is substantial ambivalence and indecisiveness on the part of most ICD-patients in this nationwide survey about having these discussions and about expressing desires about deactivation in an anticipated end-of-life situation.
关于植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)管理的专家共识声明强调在植入前后进行关于停用ICD的讨论的重要性。这些声明是在患者参与有限的情况下制定的。本研究的目的是在一个大型全国性ICD接受者队列中,确定与患者临终讨论经历、对此类讨论的态度以及临终时对治疗撤销(即发生器更换和停用)的态度相关的因素。
我们招募了3067名ICD患者,进行了临终ICD问卷调查。
大多数(86%)患者未与医生讨论过ICD停用问题。大多数(69%)患者认为临终时进行讨论最佳,但40%的患者表示他们从未希望医生发起讨论。那些不愿意讨论停用的患者更年轻,经历过电池更换,植入时间更长,生活质量更好。有心理疾病的患者更希望讨论停用问题。许多患者(39%)无法预见在预期的终末期情况下关于停用应如何决定。女性、没有抑郁症的患者以及ICD相关经历较差的患者在治疗撤销方面更犹豫不决。无论是否有电击经历,那些对停用能表明立场的患者在很多情况下(39%)选择维持电击治疗。
尽管有共识声明建议在临终时讨论ICD停用问题,但此类讨论通常并未发生。在这项全国性调查中,大多数ICD患者在是否进行这些讨论以及在预期的临终情况下表达关于停用的愿望方面存在很大的矛盾心理和犹豫不决。