Key result
A systematic review of 22 papers on ICD deactivation discussions found they are not undertaken consistently due to lack of professional awareness of guidelines and limited communication training.
Why the study?
ICD shocks may prolong an uncomfortable dying process in aging recipients with progressive multimorbidity, but ICD deactivation is not always discussed and planned.
What are the current practices, barriers, and facilitators regarding discussions of ICD deactivation with adult patients?
Systematic Review (n=22)
What are the current practices, barriers, and facilitators regarding discussions of ICD deactivation with adult patients?
Despite existing guidelines, discussions about ICD deactivation at the end of life are inconsistently performed, highlighting a critical need for proactive education and communication training for healthcare professionals.
Discussions on ICD deactivation remain inconsistent despite guidelines; challenges implementation and supports targeted professional education initiatives.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are used to treat life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias and prevent sudden cardiac arrest. As recipients age they may develop greater risk of dying as a result of progressive multimorbidity rather than sudden cardiac death. Defibrillation shocks may prolong an uncomfortable dying process. Deactivation of the defibrillator would prevent this, yet is not always discussed and planned. AIM: To systematically review published evidence on ICD deactivation discussions and make recommendations on when, how and who should facilitate effective and patient-centred deactivation discussions. METHODS: Using standard systematic review methods, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched for studies published in the English language between 2010 and March 2021. Inclusion criteria were studies of adults (≥18 years) and including discussions on ICD deactivation and/or related communication. Included studies were independently reviewed, data extracted, quality assessed and data synthesised using a deductive approach. RESULTS: Of the 8893 articles identified, 22 papers met the inclusion criteria. Deductive approach led to identification of five main themes: (1) timing of ICD deactivation discussions, (2) initiation of deactivation discussions, (3) advance directives, (4) barriers to discussions and (5) facilitators of discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite available guidelines, conversations on device deactivation are not being undertaken consistently. Evidence suggests lack of professional awareness of guidelines and limited training in communication skills. To prevent distress and promote comfortable dying, there needs to be a proactive clinical and policy initiative in the education of both professionals and patients and their relatives about device deactivation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Freemantle et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review in Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (n=22). ICD deactivation discussions was evaluated on Themes related to ICD deactivation discussions. A systematic review of 22 papers on ICD deactivation discussions found they are not undertaken consistently due to lack of professional awareness of guidelines and limited communication training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: