Decisions to Withdraw Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: Patient Characteristics and Ethical Considerations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. RESULTS: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. CONCLUSION: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.

Ethical Analysis of Withdrawing Total Artificial Heart Support.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of patients who undergo withdrawal of total artificial heart support and to explore the ethical aspects of withdrawing this life-sustaining treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all adult recipients of a total artificial heart at Mayo Clinic from the program's inception in 2007 through June 30, 2015. Management of other life-sustaining therapies, approach to end-of-life decision making, engagement of ethics and palliative care consultation, and causes of death were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 47 total artificial heart recipients, 14 patients or their surrogates (30%) requested withdrawal of total artificial heart support. No request was denied by treatment teams. All 14 patients were supported with at least 1 other life-sustaining therapy. Only 1 patient was able to participate in decision making. CONCLUSION: It is widely held to be ethically permissible to withdraw a life-sustaining treatment when the treatment no longer meets the patient's health care-related goals (ie, the burdens outweigh the benefits). These data suggest that some patients, surrogates, physicians, and other care providers believe that this principle extends to the withdrawal of total artificial heart support.