Mueller, Paul S.

Background and objectives ESRD requiring dialysis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates, including increased rates of cognitive impairment, compared with the general population. About one quarter of patients receiving dialysis choose to discontinue dialysis at the end of life. Advance directives are intended to give providers and surrogates instruction on managing medical decision making, including end of life situations. The prevalence of advance directives is low among patients receiving dialysis. Little is known about the contents of advance directives among these patients with advance directives. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients receiving maintenance in–center hemodialysis at a tertiary academic medical center between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2012. We collected demographic data, the prevalence of advance directives, and a content analysis of these advance directives. We specifically examined the advance directives for instructions on management of interventions at end of life, including dialysis. Results Among 808 patients (mean age of 68.6 years old; men =61.2%), 49% had advance directives, of which only 10.6% mentioned dialysis and only 3% specifically addressed dialysis management at end of life. Patients who had advance directives were more likely to be older (74.5 versus 65.4 years old; P <0.001) and have died during the study period (64.4% versus 46.6%; P <0.001) than patients who did not have advance directives. Notably, for patients receiving dialysis who had advance directives, more of the advance directives addressed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (44.2%), mechanical ventilation (37.1%), artificial nutrition and hydration (34.3%), and pain management (43.4%) than dialysis (10.6%). Conclusions Although one-half of the patients receiving dialysis in our study had advance directives, end of life management of dialysis was rarely addressed. Future research should focus on improving discernment and documentation of end of life values, goals, and preferences, such as dialysis–specific advance directives, among these patients.

The presence of cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators complicates making end-of-life (EOL) medical decisions. Palliative care/medicine consultation (PCMC) may benefit patients and primary providers, but data are lacking. We retrospectively reviewed 150 charts of patients who underwent device deactivation at our tertiary care center (between November 1, 2008, and September 1, 2012), assessing for PCMC and outcomes. Overall, 42% of patients received a PCMC, and 68% of those PCMCs specifically addressed device deactivation. Median survival following deactivation was 2 days, with 42% of deaths occurring within 1 day of deactivation. There was no difference in survival between the groups. The EOL care for patients with implanted cardiac devices is complex, but PCMC may assist with symptom management and clarification of goals of care for such patients.

This prospective, observational pilot study was conducted on an academic inpatient rehabilitation unit. Ninety-three persons with spinal cord dysfunction or severe neurological illness participated. All completed admission surveys; 46 completed surveys six months after discharge. The aims were to describe admission and post-discharge spirituality and associations between spirituality and rehabilitation outcomes. At admission, participants reported spirituality similar to that of other samples of medical patients. After discharge, frequency of private spiritual practices increased and spiritual and existential well-being decreased. No significant associations were detected between spirituality and rehabilitation outcomes. Findings suggest the importance of spirituality to the participants and future research with a larger sample and modifications to the methodology.

BackgroundFew patients decline therapy of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), and little is known about the characteristics or reasoning of those who do. Our objective was to describe the reasons why patients decline CIED implantation using qualitative methods.MethodsQualitative, engaging thematic analysis. Three patient focus groups led by two trained facilitators and one semi‐structured interview guide.ResultsOf the 13 patients, two were women and all were white (median age [range], 65 [44–88] years). Five themes emerged: (1) don't mess with a good thing; (2) my health is good enough; (3) independent decision making; (4) it's your job, but it's my choice; and (5) gaps in learning. Most patients who decline CIEDs are asymptomatic. Other reasons to decline included feeling well, enjoying life, acceptance of the future, desire to try to improve health through diet and exercise, hearing of negative CIED experiences, and unwillingness to take on associated risks of CIED implantation. A medical record review showed that clinicians understand patients’ reasons for declining CIED treatment. However, focus group data suggest that gaps in patients’ knowledge around the purpose and function of CIEDs exist and patients may benefit from targeted education.ConclusionsPatients decline implantation of CIEDs for various reasons. Most patients who decline therapy are asymptomatic at the time of their device consult. Focus group information show data suggestive that device consultations should be enhanced to address gaps in patient learning and confirm knowledge transfer. Clinicians should revisit treatment options iteratively.

Background— Little is known about the resuscitation preferences of patients with heart failure, how they may change over the course of the disease, and their association with mortality. Methods and Results— We enrolled consecutive Southeastern Minnesota residents with heart failure from October 2007 through September 2011 into a longitudinal study. Information on resuscitation preferences (Full Code or do-not-resuscitate [DNR]) was obtained from medical records through April 1, 2013. Of 608 patients enrolled, 237 died during follow-up. At enrollment, most patients (73.4%) were Full Code, whereas at death, most (78.5%) were DNR. The independent predictors of DNR status at enrollment were advanced age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous malignancy, and decreased mobility. Patients who were DNR were at increased risk of death (unadjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.48–2.73; P <0.001), but this risk did not persist after adjusting for age, comorbidity, and self-perceived general health (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–1.30; P =0.83). Of 481 patients who were Full Code during follow-up, 22 (4.6%) received cardiopulmonary resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Eight patients survived to hospital discharge; only 2 (9.1% of those receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation) made a complete recovery and returned home. The median time from a final decision to be DNR until death was only 37 (7,70) days. Conclusions— The resuscitation preferences of patients with heart failure seem to be driven by the decline in clinical status that often accompanies advanced age and multimorbidity. Furthermore, these data suggest that electing DNR status does not independently affect a patient’s risk of death.

Background— Patients undergo major physical and psychological changes after implantation of a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT). We sought to qualitatively study outcomes and attitudes of patients after DT. Methods and Results— Ambulatory outpatients with DT at our institution were invited to be interviewed between June and August 2011. In-person interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. The study included 12 patients (11 men) from the Midwestern United States with a median age of 71.5 years (range, 33–78 years). Interviews were conducted at a median (range) time of 1.37 (0.43–5.04) years after DT implantation. Most patients were white (n=11), married (n=10), and Christian (n=10). We identified 6 themes commonly discussed by the interviewees: preparedness planning, new lease on life, optimizing support networks, systemic limitations, reflections on time, and communication matters. Analysis revealed that most patients saw DT as their only choice, despite other alternatives. Conclusions— Ambulatory patients reported varied experiences after DT but commonly reported gratitude for improved functional status and a perception of improved symptom burden. Recommendations for improving post-DT care include developing patient support systems, systematizing education for community providers, and expanding respite services.