Premium
Compassionate deactivation of ventricular assist devices in children: A survey of pediatric ventricular assist device clinicians’ perspectives and practices
Author(s) -
Kaufman Beth D.,
Hollander Seth A.,
Zhang Yulin,
Chen Sharon,
Bernstein Daniel,
Rosenthal David N.,
Almond Christopher S.,
Murray Jenna M.,
Burgart Alyssa M.,
Cohen Harvey J.,
Kirkpatrick James N.,
Blume Elizabeth D.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
pediatric transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.457
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1399-3046
pISSN - 1397-3142
DOI - 10.1111/petr.13359
Subject(s) - medicine , subspecialty , intensivist , ventricular assist device , family medicine , best practice , medline , intensive care medicine , heart failure , intensive care , management , political science , law , economics
Objectives This study's objective was to investigate compassionate ventricular assist device deactivation (VADdeact) in children from the perspective of the pediatric heart failure provider. Background Pediatric VAD use is a standard therapy for advanced heart failure. Serious adverse events may affect relative benefit of continued support, leading to consideration of VADdeact. Perspectives and practices regarding VADdeact have been studied in adults but not in children. Methods A web‐based anonymous survey of clinicians for pediatric VAD patients (<18 years) was sent to list‐serves for the ISHLT Pediatric Council, the International Consortium of Circulatory Assist Clinicians Pediatric Taskforce, and the Pediatric Cardiac Intensivist Society. Results A total of 106 respondents met inclusion criteria of caring for pediatric VAD patients. Annual VAD volume per clinician ranged from <4 (33%) to >9 (20%). Seventy percent of respondents had performed VADdeact of a child. Response varied to VADdeact requests by parent or patient and was influenced by professional degree and region of practice. Except for the scenario of intractable suffering, no consensus on VADdeact appropriateness was reported. Age of child thought capable of making informed requests for VADdeact varied by subspecialty. The majority of respondents (62%) do not feel fully informed of relevant legal issues; 84% reported that professional society supported guidelines for VADdeact in children had utility. Conclusion There is limited consensus regarding indications for VADdeact in children reported by pediatric VAD provider survey respondents. Knowledge gaps related to legal issues are evident; therefore, professional guidelines and educational resources related to pediatric VADdeact are needed.