• Tanya H Tajouri, Abigale L Ottenberg, David L Hayes, and Paul S Mueller.
• Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
• Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012 May 1;35(5):567-73.

BackgroundWe aimed to determine the prevalence of advance directives (ADs) among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and of ADs that addressed ICD management at the end of life.MethodsThe medical records of all patients who underwent ICD implantation during 2007 at a single institution were reviewed retrospectively to determine the number of patients with an AD and the number of ADs mentioning the ICD specifically (i.e. ICD management at end of life).ResultsDuring 2007, 420 patients (males, 71%) underwent ICD implantation at our institution (mean age [range] at implantation, 63 [1-90] years). Primary prevention was the most common indication for device therapy (254 patients [61%]). Overall, 127 patients (30%) had an AD, with 83 ADs (65%) completed more than 12 months before ICD implantation and 10 (8%) completed after it. Several life-sustaining treatments were mentioned in the ADs: tube feeding, 46 (37%); cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 25 (20%); mechanical ventilation, 22 (17%); and hemodialysis, nine (7%). Pain control was mentioned in 58 ADs (46%) and comfort measures in 38 (30%). However, only two ADs (2%) mentioned the ICD or its deactivation at end of life.ConclusionsAbout one-third of patients with ICDs had an AD, but only a couple ADs mentioned the ICD. These results suggest that clinicians should not only encourage patients with ICDs to complete an AD, but also encourage them to address ICD management specifically. Not addressing ICD management in an AD may result in ethical dilemmas during end-of-life care.©2012, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

19 keywords...

hide…