liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Shared Decision-Making About End-of-Life Care Scenarios Compared Among Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients A National Cohort Study
Univ Kentucky, KY USA.
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Heart and Medicine Center, Department of Cardiology in Linköping.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7097-392X
Univ Kentucky, KY USA.
2019 (English)In: Circulation Heart Failure, ISSN 1941-3289, E-ISSN 1941-3297, Vol. 12, no 10Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Authors of expert guidelines and consensus statements recommend that decisions at the end-of-life (EOL) be discussed before and after implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and include promotion of shared decision-making. The purpose of this study was to describe experiences, attitudes, and knowledge about the ICD at EOL in ICD recipients and to compare experiences, attitudes, and knowledge in ICD recipients with and without heart failure (HF). We further sought to determine factors associated with having discussions about EOL. Methods and Results: Using a national registry in Sweden of all ICD recipients (n=5355) in 2012, an EOL questionnaire, along with other ICD-related measures, was completed by 2403 ICD recipients. Of the participants, 1275 (n=53%) had HF. Their responses in the knowledge, experience, and attitude domains were almost identical to those without HF. Forty percent of patients with and without HF did not want to discuss their illness trajectory or deactivation of their ICD ever. In logistic regression analyses, we found that having had an ICD shock (OR, 2.05; CI, 1.64-2.56), having high levels of anxiety (OR, 1.41; CI, 1.04-1.92), and having high levels of ICD concerns (OR, 1.53; CI, 1.22-1.92) were the only significant predictors of having discussions with providers about EOL scenarios (Pamp;lt;0.001 for full model). Conclusions: HF was not a predictor of having an EOL conversation. Further research is needed to determine if attitudes related to not wanting to discuss EOL interfere with good quality of life and of death, or if shared decision-making should be encouraged in these individuals.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS , 2019. Vol. 12, no 10
Keywords [en]
anxiety; consensus; decision-making; end-of-life; heart failure
National Category
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161401DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.118.005619ISI: 000490299600001PubMedID: 31601115OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-161401DiVA, id: diva2:1367450
Note

Funding Agencies|Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden (FORSS); Swedish Heart-and Lung AssociationSwedish Heart-Lung Foundation; Linkoping University Hospital Research Fund

Available from: 2019-11-04 Created: 2019-11-04 Last updated: 2025-02-10

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Thylén, Ingela
By organisation
Division of Nursing ScienceFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Cardiology in Linköping
In the same journal
Circulation Heart Failure
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf