Publication:

The Decisions, Interventions, and Goals in ImplaNtable Cardioverter‐DefIbrillator TherapY (DIGNITY) Pilot Study

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2017

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

John Wiley and Sons Inc.
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Kramer, Daniel B., Daniel Habtemariam, Yaw Adjei‐Poku, Michelle Samuel, Diane Engorn, Matthew R. Reynolds, and Susan L. Mitchell. 2017. “The Decisions, Interventions, and Goals in ImplaNtable Cardioverter‐DefIbrillator TherapY (DIGNITY) Pilot Study.” Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease 6 (9): e006881. doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006881. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006881.

Abstract

Background: Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) are commonly implanted in older patients, including those with multiple comorbidities. There are few prospective studies assessing the clinical course and end‐of‐life circumstances for these patients. Methods and Results: We prospectively followed 51 patients with ICDs for up to 18 months to longitudinally assess in terms of (1) advance care planning, (2) health status, (3) healthcare utilization, and (4) end‐of‐life circumstances through quarterly phone interviews and electronic medical record review. The mean age was 71.1±8.3, 74.5% were men, and 19.6% were non‐white. Congestive heart failure was predominant (82.4%), as was chronic kidney disease (92%). At baseline, a total of 12% of subjects met criteria for major depression, and 78.4% met criteria for mild cognitive impairment. From this initial study cohort, 76% survived to 18 months and completed all follow‐up interviews, 18% died, and 19% withdrew or were lost to follow‐up. Though living will completion and healthcare proxy assignment were common (cumulative outcome at 18 months 88% and 98%, respectively), discussions of prognosis were uncommon (baseline, 9.8%; by 18 months, 22.7%), as were conversations regarding ICD deactivation (baseline, 15.7%; by 18 months, 25.5%). Five decedents with available data received shocks in the days immediately prior to death, including 3 of whom ultimately had their ICDs deactivated prior to death. Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of prospective enrollment and follow‐up of older, vulnerable ICD patients. Early findings suggest a high burden of cognitive and psychological impairment, poor communication with providers, and frequent shocks at the end of life. These findings will inform the design of a larger cohort study designed to further explore the experiences of living and dying with an ICD in this important patient population.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

end‐of‐life care, health services research, implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator, outcomes research, Health Services, Quality and Outcomes, Heart Failure, Atrial Fibrillation

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories