Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation discussions: Reality versus recommendations
Key result
Experiencing an ICD shock was associated with having an active device at death (62.5%), whereas 93.7% of patients who had their ICD deactivated never experienced a shock (p=0.003).
Population
44 deceased patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator whose medical notes were retrieved from…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports targeted deactivation education in ICD patients; hypothesis-generating for factors influencing end-of-life decisions.
Study Design
Type
Observational (n=44)
Multicenter
No
Structured PICO
P
Population
44 deceased patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (mean age 73 years) whose medical notes were retrospectively reviewed.
O
Outcome
Documentation of ICD deactivation discussions and end-of-life management
Main Result
p-value: p=0.003
Patients with ICDs are inadequately informed about device deactivation at the end of life, highlighting a significant gap between clinical guideline recommendations and real-world practice.
Cite This Study
Hill et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (n=44). Experience of an ICD shock vs. No experience of an ICD shock was evaluated on Active ICD at death vs deactivated ICD (p=0.003). Experiencing an ICD shock was associated with having an active device at death (62.5%), whereas 93.7% of patients who had their ICD deactivated never experienced a shock (p=0.003).