International journal of cardiology · 2019
Deactivation of implantable defibrillators at end of life - Can we do better?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kinch Westerdahl Annika, Magnsjö Jackline, Frykman Viveka
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Dying patients with implantable defibrillators (ICD) have a risk of receiving unnecessary shocks before death. The aim of this study was to investigate if deactivation of shock therapy at end-of-life has increased since publication of new guidelines in 2010 on ICD management.
METHOD AND RESULTS: This is a study of two groups of ICD patients who died in hospitals before and after publication of new guidelines. Group 1 consists of 89 patients who died between 2003 and 2010. Group 2 consists of 252 patients, the total number of ICD patients in Sweden who died in hospital during 2014. Data was obtained from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry, Swedish Tax Agency and patient medical notes. Two-thirds died in wards other than Cardiology. Fifty-four percent in group 1 had a Do-Not-Resuscitate-order (DNR) compared to 73% in group 2. Shock deactivation was present in 52% in group 1 and 67% in group 2. The difference in shock deactivation between group 1 and 2 was only significant (p = 0.014) for DNR-patients treated in Cardiology. A significant difference (p = 0.036) was found in deactivation within group 2 between DNR-patients in Cardiology vs. DNR-patients in Non-Cardiology wards.
CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of ICD patients die in wards other than Cardiology. Since publication of guidelines on ICD management there is a general increase in shock deactivation for DNR-patients, but only significant for patients in Cardiology. This implicate that actions have to be taken for patients treated in Non-Cardiology wards to bridge the gap between guidelines recommendations and clinical practice.
METHOD AND RESULTS: This is a study of two groups of ICD patients who died in hospitals before and after publication of new guidelines. Group 1 consists of 89 patients who died between 2003 and 2010. Group 2 consists of 252 patients, the total number of ICD patients in Sweden who died in hospital during 2014. Data was obtained from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry, Swedish Tax Agency and patient medical notes. Two-thirds died in wards other than Cardiology. Fifty-four percent in group 1 had a Do-Not-Resuscitate-order (DNR) compared to 73% in group 2. Shock deactivation was present in 52% in group 1 and 67% in group 2. The difference in shock deactivation between group 1 and 2 was only significant (p = 0.014) for DNR-patients treated in Cardiology. A significant difference (p = 0.036) was found in deactivation within group 2 between DNR-patients in Cardiology vs. DNR-patients in Non-Cardiology wards.
CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of ICD patients die in wards other than Cardiology. Since publication of guidelines on ICD management there is a general increase in shock deactivation for DNR-patients, but only significant for patients in Cardiology. This implicate that actions have to be taken for patients treated in Non-Cardiology wards to bridge the gap between guidelines recommendations and clinical practice.