Objective To understand potential patient barriers to discussions about implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation in patients with advanced illness. Design Qualitative focus groups. Participants Fifteen community-dwelling, ambulatory patients with ICDs assigned to focus groups based on duration of time since implantation and whether they had ever received a shock from their device. Approach A physician and a social worker used a predetermined discussion guide to moderate the groups, and each session was audiotaped and subsequently transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using the method of constant comparison. Results No participant had ever discussed deactivation with their physician nor knew that deactivation was an option. Patients expressed a great deal of anxiety about receiving shocks from their device. Participants discussed why they needed the device and expressed desire for more information about the device; however, they would not engage in conversations about deactivating the ICD. One patient described deactivation “like an act of suicide” and all patients believed that the device was exclusively beneficial. Patients also expressed a desire to have their physician make the decision about deactivation. Conclusions None of the patients in our study knew that they might need to deactivate their ICD as their health worsens. These community-dwelling outpatients were not willing to discuss the issue of ICD deactivation and their attitudes about deactivation might impede patients from engaging in these conversations. These findings are in contrast to findings in other advance care planning research and may be related to the unique nature of the ICD.

Background and study aims: Type III achalasia is characterized by rapidly propagating pressurization attributable to spastic contractions. Although laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) is the current gold standard management for type III achalasia, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is conceivably superior because it allows for a longer myotomy. Our aims were to compare the efficacy and safety of POEM with LHM for type III achalasia patients. Patients and methods: A retrospective study of 49 patients who underwent POEM for type III achalasia across eight centers were compared to 26 patients who underwent LHM at a single institution. Procedural data were abstracted and pre- and post-procedural symptoms were recorded. Clinical response was defined by improvement of symptoms and decrease in Eckardt stage to ≤ 1. Secondary outcomes included length of myotomy, procedure duration, length of hospital stay, and rate of adverse events. Results: Clinical response was significantly more frequent in the POEM cohort (98.0 % vs 80.8 %; P = 0.01). POEM patients had significantly shorter mean procedure time than LHM patients (102 min vs 264 min; P < 0.01) despite longer length of myotomy (16 cm vs 8 cm; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between POEM and LHM in the length of hospital stay (3.3 days vs 3.2 days; P = 0.68), respectively. Rate of adverse events was significantly less in the POEM group (6 % vs 27 %; P < 0.01). Conclusions: POEM allows for a longer myotomy than LHM, which may result in improved clinical outcomes. POEM appears to be an effective and safe alternative to LHM in patients with type III achalasia.

No abstract

POEM and LHM appear to have similar perioperative outcomes. Further investigation is needed regarding long-term results after POEM.

POEM resulted in a successful palliation of symptoms in the majority of patients after 5 years, though these results emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up in all patients.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVE To understand potential barriers to physician-initiated discussions about Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) deactivation in patients with advanced illness. DESIGN Qualitative one-on-one interviews. PARTICIPANTS Four electrophysiologists, 4 cardiologists, and 4 generalists (internists and geriatricians) from 3 states. APPROACH Clinicians were interviewed using open-ended questions to elicit their past experiences with discussing deactivating ICDs and to determine what barriers might impede these discussions. Transcripts of these interviews were analyzed using the qualitative method of constant comparison. RESULTS Although many physicians believed that conversations about deactivating ICDs should be included in advance care planning discussions, they acknowledged that they rarely did this. Physicians indicated that there was something intrinsic to the nature of these devices that makes it inherently difficult to think of them in the same context as other management decisions at the end of a patient’s life. Other explanations physicians gave as to why they did not engage in conversations included: the small internal nature of these devices and hence absence of a physical reminder to discuss the ICD, the absence of an established relationship with the patient, and their own general concerns relating to withdrawing care. CONCLUSION Whereas some of the barriers to discussing ICD deactivation are common to all forms of advance care planning, ICDs have unique characteristics that make these conversations more difficult. Future educational interventions will need to be designed to teach physicians how to improve communication with patients about the management of ICDs at the end of life.