Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
1-Minute Consult

Can patients opt to turn off implantable cardioverter-defibrillators near the end of life?

M. Motaz Baibars, MD, M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP, Amjad Kabach, MD and Marc Pritzker, MD, FACC
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine February 2016, 83 (2) 97-98; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.83a.15007
M. Motaz Baibars
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Chadi Alraies
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Amjad Kabach
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Pritzker
Director, Pulmonary Hypertension Service, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Yes. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with advanced heart failure, their benefit in terminally ill patients is small.1 Furthermore, the shocks they deliver at the end of life can cause distress. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider ICD deactivation if the patient or family wishes.

See related commentary, page 99

A DIFFICULT DECISION

End-of-life decisions place significant emotional burdens on patients, their families, and their healthcare providers and can have social and legal consequences.

Turning off an ICD is an especially difficult decision, considering that these devices protect against sudden cardiac death and fatal arrhythmias. Also, patients and their representatives may find it more difficult to with-draw from active care than to forgo further interventions (more on this below), and they may misunderstand discussions about ICD deactivation, perceiving them as the beginning of abandonment.

ICD DEACTIVATION IS OFTEN DONE HAPHAZARDLY OR NOT AT ALL

Many healthcare providers are not trained in or comfortable with discussing end-of-life issues, and many hospitals and hospice pro-grams lack policies and protocols for managing implanted devices at the end of life. Consequently, ICD management at the end of life varies among providers and tends to be suboptimal.2

In a report of a survey in 414 hospice facilities, 97% of facilities reported that they admitted patients with ICDs, but only 10% had a policy on device deactivation.3

In a survey of 47 European medical centers, only 4% said they addressed ICD deactivation with their patients.4

A study of 125 patients with ICDs who had died found that 52% had do-not-resuscitate orders. Nevertheless, in 100 patients the ICD had remained active in the last 24 hours of their life, and 31 of these patients had received shocks during their last 24 hours.5

In a survey of next of kin of patients with ICDs who had died of any cause,6 in only 27 of 100 cases had the clinician discussed ICD deactivation, and about three-fourths of these discussions had occurred during the last few days of life. Twenty-seven patients had received ICD discharges in the last month of life, and 8% had received a discharge during the final minutes.

TRAINING AND PROTOCOLS ARE NEEDED

Healthcare professionals need education about device deactivation at the end of life so that they are comfortable communicating with patients and families about this critical issue. To this end, several cardiac and palliative care societies have jointly released an ex-pert statement on managing ICDs and other implantable devices in end-of-life situations.7

Many providers harbor a misunderstanding of the difference between withholding a de-vice and withdrawing (or turning off) a device that is already implanted.2 Some mistakenly believe they would be committing a crime by deactivating an implanted life-sustaining device. Legally and ethically, there is no difference between withholding a device and withdrawing a device. Legally, carrying out a request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is neither physician-assisted suicide nor euthanasia.

DISCUSSION SHOULD BEGIN EARLY AND SHOULD BE ONGOING

The discussion of ICD deactivation should begin before the device is implanted and should continue as the patient’s health status changes. In a survey, 40% of patients said they felt that ICD deactivation should be discussed before the device is implanted, and only 5% felt that this discussion should be undertaken in the last days of life.8

At the least, it is important to identify patients with ICDs on admission to hospice and to have policies in place that ensure adequate patient education to make an informed decision about ICD deactivation at the end of life.

The topic should be discussed when goals of care change and when do-not-resuscitate status is addressed, and also when advanced directives are being acknowledged. If the patient or his or her legal representative wishes to keep the ICD turned on, that wish should be respected. The essence of a discussion is not to impose the providers’ choice on the patient, but to help the patient make the right decision for himself or herself. Of note, patients entering hospice do not have to have do-not-resuscitate status.

We believe that device management in end-of-life circumstances should be part of the discussion of the goals of care. Accordingly, healthcare providers need to be familiar with device management and to have a higher comfort level in addressing such sensitive topics with patients facing the end of life, as well as with their families.

It is also advisable to apply protocols within hospice services to address ICD management options for the patient and the legal representative. An early decision regarding end-of-life deactivation will help patients avoid distressing ICD discharges and the related emotional distress in their last moments.

  • Copyright © 2016 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Barsheshet A,
    2. Moss AJ,
    3. Huang DT,
    4. McNitt S,
    5. Zareba W,
    6. Goldenberg I
    . Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term (8-year) benefit of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59:2075–2079.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Kapa S,
    2. Mueller PS,
    3. Hayes DL,
    4. Asirvatham SJ
    . Perspectives on withdrawing pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies at end of life: results of a survey of medical and legal professionals and patients. Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85:981–990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Goldstein N,
    2. Carlson M,
    3. Livote E,
    4. Kutner JS
    . Brief communication: management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in hospice: a nationwide survey. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152:296–299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Marinskis G,
    2. van Erven L,
    3. EHRA Scientific Initiatives Committtee
    . Deactivation of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators at the end of life: results of the EHRA survey. Europace 2010; 12:1176–1177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Kinch Westerdahl A,
    2. Sjoblom J,
    3. Mattiasson AC,
    4. Rosenqvist M,
    5. Frykman V
    . Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy before death: high risk for painful shocks at end of life. Circulation 2014; 129:422–429.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Goldstein NE,
    2. Lampert R,
    3. Bradley E,
    4. Lynn J,
    5. Krumholz HM
    . Management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in end-of-life care. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141:835–838.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Lampert R,
    2. Hayes DL,
    3. Annas GJ,
    4. et al
    5. American College of Cardiology
    6. American Geriatrics Society
    7. American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
    8. American Heart Association
    9. European Heart Rhythm Association
    10. Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association
    . HRS expert consensus statement on the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Heart Rhythm 2010; 7:1008–1026.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Raphael CE,
    2. Koa-Wing M,
    3. Stain N,
    4. Wright I,
    5. Francis DP,
    6. Kanagaratnam P
    . Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipient attitudes towards device activation: how much do patients want to know? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2011; 34:1628–1633.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 83 (2)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 83, Issue 2
1 Feb 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Can patients opt to turn off implantable cardioverter-defibrillators near the end of life?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Can patients opt to turn off implantable cardioverter-defibrillators near the end of life?
M. Motaz Baibars, M. Chadi Alraies, Amjad Kabach, Marc Pritzker
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Feb 2016, 83 (2) 97-98; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.83a.15007

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Can patients opt to turn off implantable cardioverter-defibrillators near the end of life?
M. Motaz Baibars, M. Chadi Alraies, Amjad Kabach, Marc Pritzker
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Feb 2016, 83 (2) 97-98; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.83a.15007
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • A DIFFICULT DECISION
    • ICD DEACTIVATION IS OFTEN DONE HAPHAZARDLY OR NOT AT ALL
    • TRAINING AND PROTOCOLS ARE NEEDED
    • DISCUSSION SHOULD BEGIN EARLY AND SHOULD BE ONGOING
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The ethics of ICDs: History and future directions
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The ethics of ICDs: History and future directions
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • What diagnostic tests should be done after discovering clubbing in a patient without cardiopulmonary symptoms?
  • Does my adult patient need a measles vaccine?
  • Do I need to treat supine hypertension in my hospitalized patient?
Show more 1-Minute Consult

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Cardiology
  • Geriatrics
  • Hospice & Palliative Medicine
  • Hospital Medicine

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2025 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire