Background and objective: Balance between benefit and burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is more debatable in older patients, compared to younger patients. Of around... Show moreBackground and objective: Balance between benefit and burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is more debatable in older patients, compared to younger patients. Of around 6000 yearly implanted ICDs in the Netherlands, 1:4 is received by patients >= 75 years. We aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice in the Netherlands for ICD implants and generator replacements, with a special focus on the older ICD patients. Research design and methods: Cardiologists from all Dutch ICD implanting centres (n = 28) were interviewed. Questions aimed to evaluate outpatient care, pre-operative patient assessment, end-of-life-care counselling, evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing, clinical evaluation of all patients prior to ICD replacement, and the consideration of the option to downgrade or not replace a device. Results: Implanting cardiologists from all 28 implanting centres were approached for an interview. Response rate was 86%. Management appeared diverse. An age >= 80 years was consistently reported as incentive for more extensive patient evaluation. Patients were invited for counselling prior to device replacements in only the minority (46%) of hospitals. Downgrade or non-replacement was performed in rare cases. End-of-life care discussions were not standard procedure in 67% of the hospitals. Evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing of patients was based solely on the general clinical impression of the physician in 83%, or not at all assessed in 8% of the centres. Discussion and implication: A structured framework for care and evaluation of cognitive and/or physical limitations is currently absent in most hospitals. At time of ICD (re-)evaluation, several factors may be considered before deciding on (continuation of) ICD therapy: patient preferences and comorbidity, the need for pacemaker therapy, primary vs. secondary prevention, procedural risks, and patient preferences. Show less
Mheen, M. van der; Meulen, M.H. van der; Boer, S.L. den; Schreutelkamp, D.J.; Ende, J. van der; Nijs, P.F.A. de; ... ; Dalinghaus, M. 2019
