Emergent use of mechanical circulatory support devices: Ethical dilemmas

Current Opinion in Cardiology

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 281-284

  Shah, Keyur B ^a   Levenson, James L ^b   Mehra, Mandeep R ^c  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

autonomy; deactivation; ethics; futility; left ventricular assist devices; mechanical circulatory support

Indexed keywords

CHOLINERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; HYPERTENSIVE FACTOR; INOTROPIC AGENT;

AGED; ASSISTED CIRCULATION; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CASE REPORT; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CRITICAL ILLNESS; DECISION MAKING; DEVICE THERAPY; ETHICS; EUTHANASIA; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; HEART INFARCTION; HEART VENTRICLE ARRHYTHMIA; HUMAN; HYPOTENSION; INFORMED CONSENT; LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE; MALE; MORBIDITY; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SURGICAL INJURY; HEART ASSIST DEVICE; LONG TERM CARE; PASSIVE EUTHANASIA; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; RESUSCITATION; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ASSISTED CIRCULATION; EUTHANASIA, PASSIVE; HEART-ASSIST DEVICES; HUMANS; LIFE SUPPORT CARE; MALE; MEDICAL FUTILITY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESUSCITATION ORDERS; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC;

EID: 84899471442     PISSN: 02684705     EISSN: 15317080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000058     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:493-497.
2. Hartog CS, Peschel I, Schwarzkopf D, et al. Are written advance directives helpful to guide end-of-life therapy in the intensive care unit? A retrospective matched-cohort study. J Crit Care 2014; 29:128-133.
3. Lala A, Joyce E, Groarke JD, Mehra MR. Challenges in long-term mechanical circulatory support and biological replacement of the failing heart. Circ J 2014; 78:288-299.
4. Quill TE, Holloway R. Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA 2011; 306:1483-1484.
5. Boyle AJ, Ascheim DD, Russo MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by preoperative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011; 30:402-407.
6. Rizzieri AG, Verheijde JL, Rady MY, McGregor JL. Ethical challenges with the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2008; 3:20.
7. Mueller PS, Swetz KM, Freeman MR, et al. Ethical analysis of withdrawing ventricular assist device support. Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85:791-797.
8. Swetz KM, Freeman MR, AbouEzzeddine OF, et al. Palliative medicine consultation for preparedness planning in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Mayo Clin Proc 2011; 86:493-500.
9. Brush S, Budge D, Alharethi R, et al. End-of-life decision making and implementation in recipients of a destination left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2010; 29:1337-1341.