Tischer T, Bebersdorf A, Albrecht C, Manhart J, Büttner A, Öner A, Safak E, Ince H, Ortak J, Caglayan E
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Institute of Legal Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Herz. 2020 Dec;45(Suppl 1):123-129. doi: 10.1007/s00059-019-4836-1. Epub 2019 Jul 16.
Current guidelines recommend considering deactivation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing death. We evaluated the implementation of this recommendation in unselected deceased individuals with CIEDs.
Over a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for CIEDs and these were interrogated in situ. Pacing rate, pacing mode, and lead output were documented as well as patient data including location and time of death. In implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), tachycardia therapy adjustment and occurrence of shocks 24 h prior to death were also recorded.
We examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs. Of these subjects, 125 (100%) pacemakers (PMs) and 27 (96.4%) ICDs were eligible for analysis. Death in persons with ICDs occurred most frequently in hospital (55.6%), while this was less frequently the case for individuals with PMs (43.2%). Furthermore, 33.3% of subjects with ICDs and 18.5% with PMs died in palliative care units (PCU). Shock therapies were switched off in three (60%) individuals with ICDs who died in the PCU, whereas antibradycardia therapy was not withdrawn in any PM patient in the PCU. Therapy withdrawal occurred in two patients with PMs (1.3%) who died in hospital. Patients with PMs had high ventricular pacing rates at the last interrogation (69 ± 36.0%) and often suffered atrioventricular block (39.2%). Six (25%) of the 24 active ICDs presented shocks near the time of death.
Many CIED patients died in hospital; nonetheless, in practice, CIED deactivation near death is rarely performed and might be less feasible in subjects with PMs. However, there is still a need to consider deactivation, especially in individuals with ICDs, as one fourth of them received at least one shock within 24 h prior to death.
当前指南建议考虑对濒死患者停用心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)。我们评估了这一建议在未选择的植入CIED的已故个体中的实施情况。
在2016年的7个月期间,对所有送往罗斯托克火葬场的已故人员进行前瞻性CIED筛查,并在原地对其进行问询。记录起搏频率、起搏模式和导联输出以及患者数据,包括死亡地点和时间。对于植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD),还记录了心动过速治疗调整情况以及死亡前24小时内的电击发生情况。
我们检查了2297名受试者,其中154名(6.7%)植入了CIED。在这些受试者中,125台(100%)起搏器(PM)和27台(96.4%)ICD符合分析条件。ICD患者的死亡最常发生在医院(55.6%),而PM患者的情况则较少(43.2%)。此外,33.3%的ICD受试者和18.5%的PM受试者在姑息治疗病房(PCU)死亡。在PCU死亡的3名(60%)ICD患者中,电击治疗被关闭,而PCU中没有任何PM患者的抗心动过缓治疗被撤掉。在医院死亡的2名(1.3%)PM患者中发生了治疗撤掉情况。PM患者在最后一次问询时心室起搏频率较高(69±36.0%),且常患有房室传导阻滞(39.2%)。24台仍在工作的ICD中有6台(25%)在死亡时间附近出现了电击。
许多CIED患者在医院死亡;尽管如此,在实际中,濒死时CIED停用很少进行,并且在PM患者中可能不太可行。然而,仍然需要考虑停用,尤其是在ICD患者中,因为其中四分之一在死亡前24小时内至少接受了一次电击。