Heart, lung & circulation · 2026
A Scoping Review of Australian Hospitals' Policies on the Deactivation of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grose Daniel, Corbett Cathy, Walker Anne, Lim Wen Kwang, Smallwood Natasha, Zentner Dominica
Аннотация
AIM: More 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.
METHOD: Guidelines' 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.
RESULTS: Following 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%).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of local health service guidance to support clinicians navigating ICD deactivation at end-of-life.
METHOD: Guidelines' 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.
RESULTS: Following 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%).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of local health service guidance to support clinicians navigating ICD deactivation at end-of-life.