Fried Arielle, Hockstein Max, Rao Anirudh, Pottash Michael
Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; Division of Critical Care Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
JACC Adv. 2025 Jun;4(6 Pt 1):101835. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101835. Epub 2025 May 30.
Requests for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) deactivation may pose unique emotional and moral burdens on clinicians.
The authors aimed to explore the perspectives of interprofessional clinicians regarding LVAD deactivation across clinical settings compared to cessation of hemodialysis.
Vignette-based interviews were conducted with a sample of interprofessional clinicians at a heart and vascular center from April 14, 2023, to June 5, 2023. Likert-scale responses to paired vignettes were analyzed descriptively and with inferential statistics.
Eighty clinicians agreed to be interviewed for this study (27.5% physicians, 23.8% nurses, 17.5% physician trainees, 16.3% advanced practice providers, and 15% social workers, bioethicists, and chaplains). Clinicians uniformly felt that vignettes depicting LVAD deactivation were more ethically complex and less likely to be honored than dialysis discontinuation across clinical scenarios (P < 0.001). Clinicians were more likely to rate scenarios that described the patient without other medical comorbidities ("tired of life") for either the patient with a LVAD or a patient on dialysis as ethically complex and were less likely to suggest honoring the patient's request (P < 0.001). These trends remained consistent across all demographic and clinician disciplines.
When compared to requests to discontinue hemodialysis, clinicians perceive LVAD deactivation as more ethically complex and were less likely to honor the patient's request. These differences persisted across clinical scenarios, from acutely ill to chronically ill to independent.
关于停用左心室辅助装置(LVAD)的请求可能给临床医生带来独特的情感和道德负担。
作者旨在探讨跨专业临床医生对于在不同临床环境中停用LVAD与停止血液透析的看法。
于2023年4月14日至2023年6月5日,对一家心脏和血管中心的跨专业临床医生样本进行了基于病例的访谈。对配对病例的李克特量表回答进行了描述性分析和推断性统计分析。
80名临床医生同意参与本研究的访谈(27.5%为医生,23.8%为护士,17.5%为医生实习生,16.3%为高级执业提供者,15%为社会工作者、生物伦理学家和牧师)。临床医生一致认为,在所有临床场景中,描述停用LVAD的病例在伦理上更为复杂,且比停止透析更不可能得到尊重(P<0.001)。临床医生更有可能将描述没有其他合并症(“厌倦生活”)的LVAD患者或透析患者的病例评为伦理复杂,且不太可能建议尊重患者的请求(P<0.001)。这些趋势在所有人口统计学和临床医生学科中均保持一致。
与停止血液透析的请求相比,临床医生认为停用LVAD在伦理上更为复杂,且不太可能尊重患者的请求。这些差异在从急性病到慢性病再到独立生活的所有临床场景中均持续存在。