Purpose of the review This review discusses the ethical issues raised by the increased use of devices to treat heart failure. Recent findings Recent guidelines and clinical trials describe the benefits of device therapy in advanced heart failure. Other studies and commentaries illustrate the potential for harm, both to the individual patient in the form of reduced quality of life and to society in the form of unbearable costs. Recent reports discuss the specific issues involved with deactivating different devices and document low rates of advanced care planning in relation to device management at the end of life. Summary More research, increased end-of-life education, renewed emphasis on advance directives, and a true multidisciplinary approach are needed to provide optimal care for heart failure patients in relation to device therapy.
In this case report, we describe inappropriate pacing in a patient with a newly implanted biventricular pacing system with three epicardial leads. Very high pacing thresholds resulted from the use of nonsteroid eluting leads, and unusual pacing behavior was due to the chosen implant locations for the right atrial and right ventricular epicardial leads. The interplay between the programmed pacemaker parameters, the very late ventricular sensing in the setting of intrinsic right bundle branch block, and atrial lead oversensing led to ineffective biventricular pacing. The persistently elevated pacing thresholds and sensing problems led to very early battery depletion and the need to replace the epicardial system with three new endocardial leads .
Differentiation between supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) remains a substantial clinical challenge in patients with single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) due to absence of visible P waves. Innovative optimization of intrathoracic electrogram (EGM) configuration will facilitate P-wave detection and rhythm differentiation during tachycardia.Innovative optimization of EGM configuration was originally performed to improve patient care. In this retrospective cohort study, we examined our database for records of 140 consecutive patients undergoing single-chamber ICD implantation. During the follow-ups of 61 included patients with optimized EGM configuration, 27 patients were identified to have VT and/or SVT. EGMs in the Can (generator) to superior vena cava (Can-SVC) configuration were compared with those conventionally from the Can to right ventricular coil (Can-RV coil) source in the same patients. In Can-SVC EGMs, the ratio of P/QRS amplitude was 14-fold higher (0.57 ± 0.08 vs. 0.04 ± 0.00, P < 0.001) compared with those in Can-RV coil EGMs during sinus rhythm. With Can-SVC configuration, the odds of atrioventricular dissociation detection in patients with VT was increased 15-fold (61.9% vs. 9.5% with Can-RV coil; odds ratio, 15.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 84.7; P = 0.0009). In patients with SVT, P-waves or retrograde P-waves were markedly more identifiable in Can-SVC configuration compared with Can-RV coil (odds ratio, 40; 95% confidence interval, 3.6 to 447.1; P = 0.0010).P-wave recognition by optimizing EGM configuration provides a novel diagnostic tool for differentiation between VT and SVT in single-chamber ICDs. A potential discrimination algorithm would provide a cost-effective approach to improving the qualitative outcomes.
Unilateral do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders (against patient/family wishes) have been ethically justified in cases of medical futility. We investigated whether electrophysiology practitioners believe medical futility justifies unilateral implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation.Email invitations to take an online survey were sent to 1,894 electrophysiology practitioners. A total of 384 responses were collected (response rate 20.6%). Though the sample included respondents from Europe, Asia, Australia, South America, and Africa, the majority were from North America (78%), were academically affiliated (64%), and practiced in an urban setting (67.8%). Deactivation of ICD shock function in agreement with patient wishes and a preexisting DNR were not considered physician-assisted suicide (93.2%, 358/384). However, a majority of the sample responded that it was not ethical/moral for doctors to deactivate ICDs against patients' wishes (77.1%, 296/384) or against family/surrogates' wishes (72.4%, 278/384), even in the context of medical futility. A majority indicated that deactivating ICD shock function is not ethically/morally different than withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation or external defibrillation in a code (72.7%, 277/381), but was different than deactivating pacing in a pacemaker-dependent patient (82.8%, 318/384). In the classification of interventions, a plurality (43.0%, 165/383) regarded ICDs to be unlike any other intervention. Concerning pacemakers, 50% (191/382) considered them to be like dialysis (a therapy that keeps patients alive).This international sample of electrophysiology practitioners considered ICD and pacemaker deactivation to be ethically distinct. While ICD deactivation was considered appropriate in the setting of patient/family agreement, unilateral deactivation was not.
