Dataset Information

Decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices: "there was no choice" versus "I thought about it an awful lot".

ABSTRACT: Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT LVADs) are one of the most invasive medical interventions for end-stage illness. How patients decide whether or not to proceed with device implantation is unknown. We aimed to understand the decision-making processes of patients who either accept or decline DT LVADs.Between October 2012 and September 2013, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews to understand patients' decision-making experiences. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Twenty-two eligible patients were interviewed, 15 with DT LVADs and 7 who declined. We found a strong dichotomy between decision processes with some patients (11 accepters) being automatic and others (3 accepters, 7 decliners) being reflective in their approach to decision making. The automatic group was characterized by a fear of dying and an over-riding desire to live as long as possible: "[LVAD] was the only option I had…that or push up daisies…so I automatically took this." By contrast, the reflective group went through a reasoned process of weighing risks, benefits, and burdens: "There are worse things than death." Irrespective of approach, most patients experienced the DT LVAD decision as a highly emotional process and many sought support from their families or spiritually.Some patients offered a DT LVAD face the decision by reflecting on a process and reasoning through risks and benefits. For others, the desire to live supersedes such reflective processing. Acknowledging this difference is important when considering how to support patients who are faced with this complex decision.

SUBMITTER: McIlvennan CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4081474 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices: "there was no choice" versus "I thought about it an awful lot".

McIlvennan Colleen K CK Allen Larry A LA Nowels Carolyn C Brieke Andreas A Cleveland Joseph C JC Matlock Daniel D DD

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 20140513 3

<h4>Background</h4>Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT LVADs) are one of the most invasive medical interventions for end-stage illness. How patients decide whether or not to proceed with device implantation is unknown. We aimed to understand the decision-making processes of patients who either accept or decline DT LVADs.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Between October 2012 and September 2013, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews to understand patients' decision-making ...[more]

PMID: 24823949

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Shared decision making helps patients and clinicians elect therapies aligned with patients' values and preferences. This is particularly important for invasive therapies with considerable trade-offs. Objective:To assess the effectiveness of a shared decision support intervention for patients considering destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) placement. Design, Setting, and Participants:From 2015 to 2017, a randomized, stepped-wedge trial was conducted in 6 US LVAD implanting centers including 248 patients being considered for DT LVAD. After randomly varying time in usual care, sites were transitioned to an intervention consisting of clinician education and use of DT LVAD pamphlet and video patient decision aids. Follow up occurred at 1 and 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures:Decision quality as measured by knowledge and values-choice concordance. Results:In total, 135 patients were enrolled during control and 113 during intervention periods. At enrollment, 59 (23.8%) participants were in intensive care, 60 (24.1%) were older than 70 years, 39 (15.7%) were women, 45 (18.1%) were racial/ethnic minorities, and 62 (25.0%) were college graduates. Patient knowledge (mean test performance) during the decision-making period improved from 59.5% to 64.9% in the control group vs 59.1% to 70.0% in the intervention group (adjusted difference of difference, 5.5%; P = .03). Stated values at 1 month (scale 1 = "do everything I can to live longer…" to 10 = "live with whatever time I have left…") were a mean of 2.37 in control and 3.33 in intervention (P = .03). Patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month favored LVAD more in the control group (than in the intervention group (47 [59.5%] vs 95 [91.3%], P < .001). Correlation between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month was stronger in the intervention group than in the control group (difference in Kendall's τ, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.05-0.45); however, there was no improved correlation between stated values and actual treatment received by 6 months for the intervention compared with the control group (difference in Kendall's τ, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.25). The adjusted rate of LVAD implantation by 6 months was higher for those in the control group (79.9%) than those in the intervention group (53.9%, P = .008), with significant variation by site. There were no differences in decision conflict, decision regret, or preferred control. Conclusions and Relevance:A shared decision-making intervention for DT LVAD modestly improved patient decision quality as measured by patient knowledge and concordance between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice, but did not improve concordance between stated values and actual treatment received. The rate of implantation of LVADs was substantially lower in the intervention compared with the control group. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02344576.

Project description:The left ventricular assist device was originally designed to be surgically implanted as a bridge to transplantation for patients with chronic end-stage heart failure. On the basis of the REMATCH trial, the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved permanent implantation of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy in Medicare beneficiaries who are not candidates for heart transplantation. The use of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy raises certain ethical challenges. Left ventricular assist devices can prolong the survival of average recipients compared with optimal medical management of chronic end-stage heart failure. However, the overall quality of life can be adversely affected in some recipients because of serious infections, neurologic complications, and device malfunction. Left ventricular assist devices alter end-of-life trajectories. The caregivers of recipients may experience significant burden (e.g., poor physical health, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder) from destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices. There are also social and financial ramifications for recipients and their families. We advocate early utilization of a palliative care approach and outline prerequisite conditions so that consenting for the use of a left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy is a well informed process. These conditions include: (1) direct participation of a multidisciplinary care team, including palliative care specialists, (2) a concise plan of care for anticipated device-related complications, (3) careful surveillance and counseling for caregiver burden, (4) advance-care planning for anticipated end-of-life trajectories and timing of device deactivation, and (5) a plan to address the long-term financial burden on patients, families, and caregivers.Short-term mechanical circulatory devices (e.g. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, etc.) can be initiated in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of ventricular assist devices in chronic end-stage heart failure. In the absence of first-person (patient) consent, presumed consent or surrogate consent should be used cautiously for the initiation of short-term mechanical circulatory devices in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of left ventricular assist devices. Future clinical studies of destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices should include measures of recipients' quality of end-of-life care and caregivers' burden.

Dataset Information

Decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices: "there was no choice" versus "I thought about it an awful lot".

Publications

Decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices: "there was no choice" versus "I thought about it an awful lot".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets