Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of advance directives in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about advance directive (AD) utilization in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define the prevalence and predictors of ADs in patients with ICDs. METHODS: We identified ICD recipients with ADs at our institution. The primary end point was the prevalence of an AD documented up to 1 year after device implant and the secondary end point was the cumulative prevalence of an AD. RESULTS: Of 2549 patients with ICDs, 701 (27.5%) were followed for at least 1 year after device implant, and of those 701 patients, 164 (23.4%) had ADs documented before or within 1 year of ICD implant. The prevalence of ICD recipients with ADs increased overtime, reaching approximately 10% in the most recent years of analysis. However, only 1 AD specifically addressed the ICD as part of end-of-life decision making. In multivariable analysis, more recent year of device implant and prior cardiovascular hospitalization were positively associated with having an AD within 1 year of implant. The cumulative prevalence of an AD at any time after implant reached about 30%, with more recent implant year, prior cardiovascular hospitalization, and palliative care consultation positively associated with the presence of an AD and black race associated with a lower cumulative prevalence. CONCLUSION: In a tertiary academic medical center, most patients with ICDs still do not have ADs, and even when they do, the ICDs are rarely addressed as part of the directive. Several predictors of ADs emerged, which may provide opportunities to improve utilization of ADs in ICD recipients.

Procedural outcomes and long-term survival following trans-venous defibrillator lead extraction in patients with end-stage renal disease.

AIMS: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) increases the risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) infection. We sought to define outcomes of lead extraction in patients with ESRD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extractions at our institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were stratified by absence (Control-Ex, n = 465) or presence (ESRD-Ex, n = 43) of ESRD. Procedural outcomes and survival were determined by medical records review. Survival in the ESRD-Ex group was compared with a contemporaneous cohort with ESRD undergoing ICD lead implantation (ESRD-I, n = 127). Among extraction patients, those with ESRD were more likely to be extracted for infection (74.4% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.001). Extraction procedure success (Control-Ex: 97% vs. ESRD-Ex: 93%, P = 0.17) and procedural deaths (Control-Ex: 1.1% vs. ESRD-Ex: 2.3%, P = 0.413) were similar. Survival 1 year following extraction was worse in the ESRD-Ex group compared with the Control-Ex, with a survival rate of 65.6% vs. 92.6% (P < 0.001); these curves continued to diverge through year 3. One-year survival in the ESRD-Ex group was worse than among ESRD patients undergoing ICD implant (ESRD-I), but these curves converged and survival was similar by year 3. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction can be performed safely and effectively in patients with ESRD. However, despite high rates of procedural success, long-term mortality following extraction in ESRD patients is substantial. Much of the long-term mortality risk appears to be accounted for by the presence of ESRD and an indication for an ICD.