Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Deactivation Research Articles

Abstract 4121624: Ambulatory Inotropic Support in Patients with Stage D Heart Failure Does Not Increase ICD Therapies

Background: Ambulatory inotropic infusions can be used as a palliative therapy (PT) or bridge to advanced therapies in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) patients, many of whom have implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Research Questions: How often do patients receive ICD therapies after initiation of outpatient inotropic support and how often is defibrillation inactivated? Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients discharged from an academic tertiary medical center with a new prescription for inotropic therapy between November 2017 and March 2023. Clinical data, Palliative Care consultation, and ICD interrogations before and after inotrope initiation were extracted from the electronic health record. Results: The cohort comprised 45 patients discharged on new inotropic support, including 22 (49%) with intent of PT and 23 (51%) as a bridge to advanced therapies (Figure). Among PT patients, 15 (68%) had an ICD in place with only 4 having ICD therapies deactivated at discharge. Only 2 additional PT patients had a documented discussion regarding ongoing ICD therapies. By 1 year, 4 (18%) PT patients were transitioned to hospice and 13 (59%) had died, with only 1 additional patient having ICD deactivation. Of 28 patients discharged on inotropic infusions with ICD therapies on (both PT and bridge patients), only 4 patients had ICD therapies turned off later and no ICD shocks were reported for the year following initiation of inotropic support. Conclusion: In a series of 45 patients initiated on inotropic support for PT or bridge to advanced therapies, the majority (77%) had an active ICD, but therapies were rarely delivered. Notably, there were very few documented discussions regarding ICD therapies in PT patients even with specialty Palliative Care consultation. In patients with ESHF initiated on inotropic support as PT, most patients chose to leave ICD therapies in place. For those patients, there was a low rate of ICD therapies delivered.

Defibrillation deactivation state and activation status in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators at the end of life

Abstract Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are effective in preventing sudden cardiac death due to lethal arrhythmias. Defibrillation is also known to cause physical and emotional distress to patients, and guidelines on palliative care for cardiovascular disease recommend that when patients with ICDs reach the end of life, the benefits and burdens of ICDs should be fully explained to patients and a policy regarding the cessation of defibrillation discussed. However, there are few reports on the treatment status and defibrillation deactivation in patients with ICDs in the terminal phase. Aim To investigate defibrillation activation and defibrillation deactivation in terminally ill patients with ICDs. Results Death was confirmed in 146 patients in the medical record, and a DNAR policy was decided in 46 patients. The decision to deactivate defibrillation was informed to 24 patients (16%), and 15 patients (10%) were deactivated (11 patients in terminal heart failure and 4 patients in others). Four of the nine patients (6%) who did not deactivate defibrillation had a shock before death.Of the 22 patients (14 cardiovascular deaths and 8 others) who were not explained about the deactivation of defibrillation, 4 had shock activation before death.Of the 24 patients who received explanation about defibrillation deactivation, 6 (25%) had the policy decided by the patient and family, and 18 (75%) had the policy decided by the family because the patient's will could not be confirmed due to deterioration of end-stage condition. Discussion This study showed that defibrillation was deactivated in only 10% of Japanese patients with end-stage ICDs.ICD patients do not always reach the end of life due to heart failure. It is important for physicians, clinical engineers, and device nurses involved in device care to provide information and to confirm the wishes of patients and their families regarding the deactivation of defibrillation so that they can be supported in their decision-making regarding defibrillation no matter under what circumstances they reach the end of life. Conclusion Discussion of ICD deactivation in palliative care is needed to reduce the risk of painful shock and distress at the end of life.

The Presence of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators is Rarely Addressed During Code Status Change.

Background: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) are used to prevent sudden cardiac death, but they may provide unwanted shocks during end-of-life care. We aimed to study the frequency at which Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) discussions address ICD preferences in high-risk patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patient hospitalizations with the presence of an ICD, a change in code status to DNR, and a subsequent death during that hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, significant comorbidities, if and when ICD was discussed, and who performed code status discussions, and were analyzed for statistical significance. Results: 129 patients met study criteria, and 110 patients (85.3%) did not have a documented discussion addressing ICD deactivation. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics between patients with ICD addressed or not addressed, nor were there differences noted between discussions performed by residents vs staff or with the presence of cardiology, critical care status, or with palliative care consultation. It was noted that specifically discussing intubation or cardioversion was associated with the discussion of ICD deactivation. Conclusion: ICD discussions were rarely documented in our high-risk population, highlighting a potential need for better in-chart visibility of ICDs and for focused education of clinicians who care for these patients at end of life.

The difficult discussion on the deactivation of implantable cardioverter devices at the end of life: a systematic review.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reliably prevent death due to life-threatening arrhythmias; this may become less relevant in people with more severe heart failure who are reaching the end of life (EOL). This review aimed to explore the ICD deactivation process and identify ethical issues, especially around the initiation of relevant discussions among professionals and patients. Available literature was reviewed using four electronic databases to identify issues that may deter healthcare professionals from having important deactivation discussions and to address considerations for ICD management prior to the EOL. The search resulted in the retainment of 12 studies. Three themes emerged from the data: barriers and facilitators, ethical considerations in clinical practice, and nurse's role. Lack of knowledge, which has been associated with cultural differences, has been found among the barriers, and interdisciplinary education and open communication appeared as facilitators. As clinicians' ethical considerations and fears emerged from the literature, nurses' special role has not been sufficiently supported. Complex care requires facilitation by multidisciplinary teams and education around the device's function regarding EOL issues. Establishing expert consensus statements on advance care planning might help define the distinct roles of each healthcare practitioner involved. Further research is needed in addressing the identified gaps.

De-escalating treatments and transitioning care in a cardiac intensive care units network

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background Recent data (1) have shown that end-of-life (EOL) management of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in Cardiac Intensive Care Units (CICU) is aggressive, with late or no involvement of palliative care (PC) teams. Purpose To evaluate current PC and EOL practices in a contemporary multicenter registry of patients with ADHF who deteriorated to cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods A survey-based approach was used to collect data on PC and EOL management practices. We enrolled CS patients from 12 participating centers. A subset of 153 patients with ADHF-CS, enrolled between March 2020 and March 2023, was analyzed. We asked participating centers to report their practice regarding de-escalating treatments and transitioning care in the context of EOL, focusing on 1) discussion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation with patients, 2) documentation of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in the patient's medical record, and 3) documentation of advance directives in the patient's medical record. We also examined early PC team involvement and ICD deactivation as indicators of de-escalating treatments and transitional care in ADHF-CS. Results are presented as numbers and percentages (%) for categorical variables and medians (interquartile range, IQR) for continuous variables. Results Baseline characteristics of the population are shown in Table 1. Figure 1 describes the practices of the participating centers. DNR was routinely documented in the medical records in only 5 of 12 centers (41.7%). PC teams were involved in 21 of 153 enrolled ADHF-CS patients (13.7%). Of the 51 patients with an ICD, 17 died: 13 patients (76%) died in the hospital and 4 (24%) died within 6 months of discharge. ICD deactivation occurred in 6 of 17 deceased patients (35.3%). One patient had ICD deactivation supported by home PC services. Conclusions This study shows that the practice of de-escalating therapy, including ICD deactivation, is not routine in the participating centers. Our findings highlight the importance of integrating PC as a concurrent process with intensive care to effectively address the unmet needs of these patients and their families.

Evaluating implementation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions in do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) forms: Audit from a tertiary care hospital in the United Kingdom

Evaluating implementation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions in do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) forms: Audit from a tertiary care hospital in the United Kingdom

An insight into healthcare professionals' perspectives on discussing implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

International studies have examined patients' views concerning the discussion of deactivating an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Findings reported that many patients were either not informed about the subject or were informed late in their illness trajectory. This study aimed to explore healthcare professionals' perspectives on discussing ICD deactivation and identify priorities for clinical practice and future research. Eleven interviews were conducted, involving heart failure nurses, physicians, and an allied professional. All were responsible for the care of patients with an ICD, from the UK or Sweden. A semi-structured guide was used. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated (as applicable), and analysed independently by experienced researchers, using framework analysis. Findings were presented, along with published work at a stakeholder meeting, and a consensus agreement was reached on priorities for clinical practice and future research. Four themes emerged from the exploratory interviews. Healthcare professionals described the discussion about deactivation as challenging, requiring compassion and involvement of family members. They agreed that the topic should be initiated prior to, or shortly after, device implantation. This was reflected in the priorities to improve communication, through the increased availability and implementation of prompts and tools, as well as the provision of tailored information to patients and family members. Stakeholders recognized the future potential of digital technology in device education. Discussing deactivation remains challenging. Healthcare professionals recognized the need to initiate the discussion early, with compassion and involvement of family members. Priorities were agreed by stakeholders, which require clinical implementation and further research.

A systematic review of Australian hospitals' policies on the deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Abstract Introduction Increasing numbers of older adults are living with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), reflecting expanded indications and increased insertion rates (1). Deactivation rates for those approaching end of life are low, risking undue distress and an undignified death (2). International guidelines recommend discussions regarding deactivation be part of pre-implantation consent (3). Local health service policies, procedures and guidelines regarding deactivation are crucial for best-practice end-of-life care. Objective This systematic review aimed to determine the availability and content of hospital policies, procedures and guidelines regarding ICD deactivation towards end of life. Methods Victorian (PROMPT) and South Australian hospital guidelines databases were systematically searched (September 2022 - February 2023) to identify all documents regarding ICD deactivation at end-of-life. Eligible documents were analysed using a data extraction tool. Results Of 4001 documents identified from 93 health services (population 8.45 million Australians), 11 were included, with 10 (91%) from public, and 8 (73%) from metropolitan, health services. Two (18%) documents provided recommendations for subacute healthcare settings and 1 (9%) for community-based patients. Guidance for prompting ICD deactivation discussions was limited. Only 2 (18%) documents advised at time of insertion, 1 (9%) at generator change and 6 (55%) during advance care planning discussions (Figure 1). Recommended indications for ICD deactivation varied and included: patients with a palliative condition (2, 18%) or receiving end-of-life care (11, 100%), patient’s request (7, 64%) and with an active do not resuscitate order (5, 45%). Nine (82%) documents provided key points for informed consent discussions including that deactivation does not cause/hasten death (8, 73%), does not deactivate pacing (8, 73%), aims to promote a peaceful death (8, 73%) and that reactivation is possible (8, 73%). Instructions for temporary deactivation using a magnet were provided in 10 (91%) documents (8 (73%) included manufacturer-specific instructions, 2 (18%) including correct magnet placement diagram). Most (10, 91%) gave non-urgent deactivation instructions. Advice for managing ICDs after death was detailed in 4 (36%) documents. Conclusion There is a paucity of local health service guidance to support Australian clinicians navigate the challenges of ICD deactivation at end of life. Consistent, detailed, high-quality local health service guidance is required to facilitate active recognition of people with whom timely discussion and action regarding ICD deactivation is appropriate. This may contribute to improved end of life care. Additionally, given the geographical size and population spread of Australia and implications for cardiologist access, logistical caveats that allow adaptation for local health service should be highlighted.Figure 1

Abstract 18146: Deactivation Status of Defibrillation at the End of Life in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are effective in preventing sudden cardiac death due to fatal arrhythmias. However, defibrillation is also known to cause physical and emotional distress to the patients. When patients with an ICD are approaching the end of life, the guidelines on palliative care in cardiovascular diseases recommend that the benefits and burdens of ICDs are fully explained to the patients and that a policy regarding the deactivation of defibrillation function is discussed. However, there are few reports on the therapy status of ICD patients in the end-stage of life.Aim: To investigate the deactivation status of defibrillation in patients with an ICD. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed ICD database at our hospital and studied 143 ICD patients who died from 2006 to June 2023. The frequency of ICD therapy delivered before death and information about the discussion of deactivation and do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) decisions were reviewed using medical charts. Results: Of 143 patients, 45 (31%) patients in the end-stage of life were assigned to DNAR and 24 (17%) patients was explained deactivation of ICD therapies at the time of DNAR order. Fifteen (10%) patients, including 11 patients in the end-stage heart failure, underwent deactivation and 2 patients received ICD therapies after DNAR order. Nine (6.2%) patients did not undergo deactivation. Of those, 4 patients received ICD shock therapies. Twenty-one patients (15%) were not given the explanation for the deactivation after DNAR order. Of those, 4 patients received ICD shock therapies. Conclusion: Our study shows that only 10% of Japanese ICD patients in the end-stage of life underwent deactivation of ICD therapies. Discussions regarding ICD deactivation in palliative care are necessary to reduce the risk of painful shocks and distress during the end of life.

Deactivating permanent pacemakers in pacemakerdependent patients with terminal illness: an ethical perspective

Medical guidelines state that both implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker deactivation may be ethically permissible when the patient requests their withdrawal based on the respect for the patient’s autonomy. However, they also state that most physicians make an ethical distinction between deactivating ICDs and deactivating permanent pacemakers in pacemaker-dependent patients, being reasonably uncomfortable when confronted with a petition for pacing deactivation in these patients. If a difference between both actions exists, what principles explain this ethical distinction? We analyze this question from the perspective of the bioethical principles and the standpoint of the distinction between substitution and replacement therapies for ethical decisions. Even if we recognize appropriate insights in these proposals, they are insufficient to provide an adequate ethical justification in case of pacemaker deactivation in pacemaker-dependent patients. We propose the burden of therapy and the configuration of the moral act as determinant factors in arriving at a solid answer. In these cases, it is necessary to arrive at a description as precise as possible of the moral action that is performed and to ask what is the basic intentionality that moves such action. Furthermore, we propose the communication virtues as an important aspect to practice in cases of request of a pacemaker withdrawal.

Implantable automatic defibrillators and their deactivation, a necessary conversation. Literature review

The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been on the rise. Patients using ICDs inevitably transit towards the end of life at some point, including some who develop terminal illnesses. In this context, it is relevant to discuss and evaluate the deactivation of these devices with the aim of addressing patients' comfort and avoiding shocks during the end-of-life phase. There are multiple communicational and operational barriers when considering ICDs deactivation. Firstly, many patients have not discussed this issue with their physicians despite international guidelines recommending such discussions before device installation. Secondly, there is a significant lack of knowledge among patients, family members, and even doctors about the benefits of ICDs, as well as the deactivation process and ethics considerations, which leads them to believe that immediate death will occur, considering it as euthanasia or assisted suicide. Finally, the management of hospice patients or end-of-life ICDs users is poorly standardized, with low rates of deactivation, resulting in shocks in the last minutes of life, which can cause marked distress to patients and families. It is necessary to address these barriers and discuss these issues with patients to inform and educate them about the functioning of their devices, with the ultimate goal of enabling informed and shared decision-making for patient well-being.

Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Deactivation at Distance for the Dignity of Dying (the 4D Project).

Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Deactivation at Distance for the Dignity of Dying (the 4D Project).

Are we missing the beat in cancer end-of-life care: Prevalence and end-of-life monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in a population-based sample of older adults diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer.

e18728 Background: More than 50,000 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are placed in adults aged 65 years and older in the United States each year to manage cardiac arrhythmias. Shared risk profiles between many cancers and heart disease, as well as cardiotoxic effects of anti-cancer treatments suggest individuals with cancer are likely to have ICD devices. Although ICDs have been studied extensively in Europe, little is known about the US population, and even less is known in populations with cancer. ICDs have critical implications for end-of-life care in patients with cancer. Many patients do not include wishes for their ICD in their advanced directives, and end-of-life shocks can cause pain and distress for patients and their families. We evaluated prevalence and end-of-life monitoring of ICDs in a national sample of older adults who had breast, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer. Methods: We analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data for first incident breast, colorectal, and pancreas cancer cases linked to Medicare claims (years 2004-2016) in Medicare-beneficiaries aged ³66 years. We evaluated the prevalence of ICDs by cancer stage at diagnosis with descriptive statistics. For patients with late-stage cancer (III or IV) who died in our study period we also evaluated the prevalence of ICD monitoring at the end of life. Because ICD deactivation is not a billable code, we evaluated ICD monitoring as a proxy for having an active device, hence an opportunity to discuss device deactivation. Results: In our sample of 286,015 individuals with cancer, 6.8% of patients had evidence of an ICD in their Medicare claims (6.1% breast, 8.2% colorectal, 5.3% pancreas). Of these, 49.7% had evidence of an ICD before their cancer diagnosis. The prevalence of ICDs was lower among the 60,046 individuals diagnosed with late-stage cancer( p< .001) (5.0% breast, 6.1% colorectal, 4.5% pancreas). Among individuals with late-stage cancer and evidence of an ICD, 27.0% of those who died had ICD monitoring in the last six months of life (21.1% breast, 27.9% colorectal, 29.3% pancreas, p= .001), and 6.2% had monitoring in the last month of life (5.1% breast, 6.5% colorectal, 6.3% pancreas, p= .46). Conclusions: To improve the quality of care at the end-of-life for people with advanced cancer, awareness, communication, and shared decision making about ICD device management options are important considerations. These data suggest there may be opportunities to discuss prognosis and implications of advanced-stage cancer at device monitoring visits or during cardio-oncology visits.

Deactivation of implantable defibrillators at the end of life - A register-based study of ICD-deactivation at home and the impact of palliative care

BackgroundThe Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) is a well-established life-saving therapy for heart failure patients, but due to the risk for unnecessary shocks, deactivation of ICD:s is recommended at the end of life.We aimed to identify i) how many people with HF and an ICD who died in Sweden in 2018 received Specialized Palliative Care (SPC), ii) of those dying outside of hospital, the proportion with deactivated ICDs prior to death for the group as a whole and by SPC access. Methods and resultsWe analyzed data from i) the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry to find all who died with an ICD in Sweden in 2018, ii) the Swedish Register of Palliative Care and, iii) the Swedish Causes of Death Certificate Register to find those who died outside of hospital. Clinical records were obtained to assess if ICDs were deactivated before death. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and chi-squared tests were applied.46/406 (11%) of those who died with an ICD in Sweden in 2018 had SPC access, of whom 50% also had cancer. 86/164 (52%) ICDs were deactivated prior to death in people dying outside of hospital; higher in those accessing SPC (36/46, (78%) SPC access versus 151/360, (42%) no SPC access; p < 0.05). ConclusionsHalf of those with HF and an ICD dying outside of hospital had ICD deactivation prior to death. Those accessing SPC were more likely to have their ICD deactivated but few received SPC, without a comorbid cancer diagnosis.

FACTORS INFLUENCING PATIENT DECISION AID USE FOR IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR DECISIONS IN THREE CANADIAN ACADEMIC HOSPITALS

FACTORS INFLUENCING PATIENT DECISION AID USE FOR IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR DECISIONS IN THREE CANADIAN ACADEMIC HOSPITALS

DEACTIVATION OF IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATORS AT DISTANCE FOR THE DIGNITY OF DYING (THE 4D STUDY)

DEACTIVATION OF IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATORS AT DISTANCE FOR THE DIGNITY OF DYING (THE 4D STUDY)

Discussions on implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation in patients receiving radiation therapy

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): University of Toronto Background Established guidelines discuss ICD deactivation and end of life care in ICD patients. A previous study has suggested that 45% of patients with an ICD and do not resuscitate order have not discussed ICD deactivation. In patients receiving radiation therapy for cancer ICD deactivation should be discussed given the life limiting nature of cancer, however it is unclear how frequently this topic is discussed in clinical practice. Objectives To report on the frequency of discussions of ICD deactivation in a population of patients receiving radiation therapy for cancer. Methods Our hospital is a large regional cancer and cardiac center in Canada. Consecutive patients of our institution presenting to our ICD clinic for ICD checks prior and during receipt of radiation therapy between 2005 and 2019 were included (n=43). Electronic medical records were reviewed to determine demographics, clinical characteristics, documentation of discussions on ICD deactivation, and survival at 1-year. Results The cohort was predominantly male (84%), with a primary prevention ICD (65%) without resynchronization capacity (74%). Discussions on ICD deactivation with subsequent deactivations occurred in 12 (28%) patients. During a median follow-up of 4 years 25 patients died, with 28% of these patients dying within 2 years of the ICD clinic encounter. Discussions on ICD deactivation were more frequent in patients who received a palliative care consultation. Conclusions End of life conversations regarding ICD deactivation in patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer are rare. Collaboration with palliative care teams may facilitate conversations on ICD deactivation during this opportune time.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation: opportunities and good practice

This literature review examines recommendations regarding good decision making for the deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in individuals who are nearing the end of life. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are considered the first line of treatment in individuals presenting with life-threatening arrhythmias. However, there comes a time when individuals may experience unwanted shocks from the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the last phases of life. This article reviews the complexities surrounding discussions about deactivation, including missed opportunities for these discussions during an individual's healthcare journey. Guidelines suggest that healthcare providers should have timely discussions regarding the deactivation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with patients and their families, empowering individuals to make an informed decision. This involves exploring the patient's values, cultural beliefs and preferences for care based on a full understanding of all options. It is recognised that good collaboration between multidisciplinary teams within secondary and primary healthcare teams plays a fundamental role in care planning. Health professionals should identify and address high levels of anxiety in patients and promote effective communication throughout the decision-making process. The nursing role should be central to this process in order to facilitate advanced care planning and enable the best healthcare outcomes for the patient. Specialist nurses play an integral part in the care of patients nearing the end of life and represent a positive force within the healthcare system in providing holistic, evidence-based care.

Patients' openness to discussing implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation at end of life: a cross-sectional study.

It is recommended that patients and clinicians discuss end-of-life deactivation of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prior to device implantation and throughout the illness trajectory to facilitate shared decision-making. However, such discussions rarely occur, and little is known about patients' openness to this discussion. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with patients' openness to discussing end-of-life ICD deactivation with clinicians. This cross-sectional study recruited 293 patients with an ICD from outpatient clinics in the USA, Australia, and South Korea. Patients were classified into an open or resistant group based on their desire to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore factors related to patients' openness to this discussion.About half of the participants (57.7%) were open to discussing such issues with their clinicians. Factors related to patients' openness to discussing device deactivation at end of life were living with someone, not having severe comorbid conditions (cancer and/or chronic kidney disease), greater ICD knowledge, and more experience discussing end-of-life issues with clinicians (odds ratio: 0.479, 0.382, 1.172, 1.332, respectively). Approximately half of the ICD recipients were reluctant to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Unmodifiable factors were their living arrangement and severe comorbidity. ICD knowledge and prior experience discussing end-of-life issues were potentially modifiable factors in the future. These factors should be addressed when assessing patients' readiness for a shared discussion about device deactivation at end of life.

JCS/JHRS 2021 guideline focused update on non-pharmacotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias.

JCS/JHRS 2021 guideline focused update on non-pharmacotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias.