Key result
While 40.1% of ICD recipients wanted more information about deactivation, secondary prevention patients were more likely to refuse further discussion than primary prevention patients (41.7% vs 22.4%; P=0.058).
Why the study?
What are the wishes and feelings of ICD recipients regarding device deactivation in near end-of-life situations?
Population
109 consecutive recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary or secondary prevention of…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Supports individualized deactivation counseling in ICD recipients; leaves open optimal strategies for secondary prevention patients reluctant to engage.
Cross-Sectional (n=109)
What are the wishes and feelings of ICD recipients regarding device deactivation in near end-of-life situations?
Absolute Event Rate: 41.7% vs 22.4%
p-value: p=0.058
While many ICD recipients desire more information about device deactivation near the end of life, a substantial proportion, particularly those with secondary prevention indications, actively refuse further discussion on the topic.
Heřman et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients (n=109). Secondary prevention ICD indication vs. Primary prevention ICD indication was evaluated on Categorical refusal of more information or further discussion on ICD deactivation (p=0.058). While 40.1% of ICD recipients wanted more information about deactivation, secondary prevention patients were more likely to refuse further discussion than primary prevention patients (41.7% vs 22.4%; P=0.058).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: