CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesPalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deactivating Implanted Cardiac Devices in Terminally Ill Patients: Practices and Attitudes

MUELLER, PAUL S., JENKINS, SARAH M., BRAMSTEDT, KATRINA A., HAYES, DAVID L.·2008·Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
DOI 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01041.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background:Clinicians may receive requests to deactivate pacemakers and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) in terminally ill patients. Methods:We describe practices and attitudes regarding deactivation of pacemakers and ICDs in terminally ill patients among physicians, nurses, and others who manage treatment of patients with implanted cardiac devices and among field representatives of device manufacturers. A Web‐based survey was provided to Heart Rhythm Society members and to representatives of two manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices. Measurements were the answers of 787 respondents. Results:Of the respondents, 86.8% reported involvement in requests for ICD deactivation and 77.6% reported involvement in pacemaker deactivation (P < 0.001). Having cared for a terminally ill patient for whom the respondent or a physician had ordered device deactivation was common (95.4% for ICDs vs 84.8% for pacemakers; P < 0.001). Having personally deactivated a device was also common (92.4% for ICDs vs 76.6% for pacemakers; P < 0.001). More respondents said they were comfortable with personally deactivating an ICD than deactivating a pacemaker (56.7% for ICDs vs 34.4% for pacemakers; P < 0.001). Respondents reported that the industry representative is the individual who deactivates the device most of the time (59.3% for ICDs and 49.7% for pacemakers). Conclusions:Deactivation of implanted cardiac devices in terminally ill patients is common. Practices and attitudes associated with pacemaker deactivation differ significantly from those associated with ICD deactivation. Professional groups should develop guidelines for managing requests for implanted cardiac device deactivation and should clarify the role of device industry representatives in these deactivations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01041.x

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Silveira MJ, 2003, When is deactivation of artificial pacing and AIDC illegal, immoral, and unethical?, Am J Geriatr Cardiol, 12, 275
  2. Wilner S., 2003, Case of the month: Comprehensive palliative care program: Keeping pace with technology: Implantable cardiac devices in palliative care, UPMC Health System
  3. Bramstedt KA, 2004, Management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in end‐of‐life care: A reply [electronic letter], Ann Intern Med

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–109 of 109

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
MUELLER, P. S., JENKINS, S. M., BRAMSTEDT, K. A., & HAYES, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
BRAMSTEDT, KATRINA A.
ORCID
Venue
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-24
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
560-568
ISSN
  • 0147-8389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-8159
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01041.x
OpenAlex
W2140641926
Cited by
109
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
FWCI
10.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
dying patients, end-of-life care, physician attitudes, physician practice, professional guidelines
MeSH terms
Attitude to Death, Attitude to Health, Electric Countershock, Health Personnel, Industry, Pacemaker, Artificial, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Societies, Medical, Terminal Care, United States, Withholding Treatment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review