PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 16, 2026Heart Lung and Circulation0 citationsOpen Access

A Scoping Review of Australian Hospitals’ Policies on the Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

DGDaniel GroseCCCathy CorbettAWAnne Walker

Key Result

Only 18% of hospital documents advised ICD deactivation discussions at time of insertion, highlighting insufficient guidance for end-of-life care management.

Key Points

  • This review aims to evaluate the existing hospital guidelines concerning ICD deactivation in older adults nearing end-of-life.
  • Conducted a systematic search of guidelines' databases in Victoria and South Australia from September 2022 to February 2023.
  • Selected documents containing guidance for ICD deactivation at end-of-life.
  • Analyzed 11 relevant documents using a pre-specified data extraction tool.
  • Identified 11 documents from 94 health services, mostly from public metropolitan facilities.
  • Limited guidance on when to discuss ICD deactivation; few suggested discussion at insertion or generator change.
  • Varied recommendations for deactivation criteria, with the majority applicable during end-of-life care.

Structured PICO

P
Population
59,662 documents from 94 health services providing acute, aged or palliative care in two Australian states (Victoria and South Australia)
I
Intervention
Hospital guidance documents regarding implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation towards end-of-life
O
Outcome
Availability and content of hospital guidance documents regarding ICD deactivation towards end-of-life

There is a significant paucity of local health service guidance documents in Australian hospitals to support clinicians navigating ICD deactivation at the end of life.

Limitations

  • The review was limited by the documents available within guidance repositories from only two Australian states.
  • No inferences could be drawn from their local access and therefore implied utility of these documents.
  • Substantial heterogeneity in governance structures across Australian health services may limit the generalisability of findings nationally.

Abstract

AimMore older adults are living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).Deactivation rates for those approaching end-of-life are low, risking undue distress and an undignified death.This scoping review aimed to determine the availability and content of hospital guidance documents regarding ICD deactivation towards end-of-life. MethodGuidelines' databases from two Australian states (Victoria and South Australia) were systematically searched between September 2022 to February 2023, to identify all documents that specified guidance for ICD deactivation at end-of-life.Relevant documents were analysed using a pre-specified data extraction tool. ResultsFollowing screening of 59,662 documents from 94 health services providing acute, aged or palliative care, 11 were included.Most were from public (10, 91%), metropolitan (eight, 73%) health services.Guidance on timing of ICD deactivation discussions was limited; only two (18%) documents advised discussion at time of insertion, one (9%) at generator change and six (55%) during advance care planning discussions.Recommended criteria for ICD deactivation varied: people with a terminal illness (two, 18%), with an active do not resuscitate order (five, 45%), receiving end-of-life care (11, 100%), or at the person's request (seven, 64%).Nine (82%) recommended consent dialogue that deactivation does not cause/hasten death (eight, 73%) or deactivate pacing (eight, 73%), aims to promote a peaceful death (eight, 73%) and that reactivation is possible (eight, 73%). ConclusionsThere is a paucity of local health service guidance to support clinicians navigating ICD deactivation at end-of-life.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Grose et al. (2026) studied this question. Only 18% of hospital documents advised ICD deactivation discussions at time of insertion, highlighting insufficient guidance for end-of-life care management.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b79df38166e15b153ab246https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2025.12.019
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper