Peri-procedural code status for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Absence of program policies and standard practices.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement
do not resuscitate
palliative care
peri-procedural
policy
Journal
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
ISSN: 1532-5415
Titre abrégé: J Am Geriatr Soc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
revised:
31
05
2022
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
04
07
2022
pubmed:
11
8
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
entrez:
10
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little is known about policies and practices for patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) who have a documented preference for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status at time of referral. We investigated how practices across TAVR programs align with goals of care for patients presenting with DNR status. Between June and September 2019, we conducted semi-structured interviews with TAVR coordinators from 52/73 invited programs (71%) in Washington and California (TAVR volume > 100/year:34%; 50-99:36%; 1-50:30%); 2 programs reported no TAVR in 2018. TAVR coordinators described peri-procedural code status policies and practices and how they accommodate patients' goals of care. We used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, stratified by programs' DNR practice, to examine differences in program size, patient characteristics and risk status, and outcomes. Nearly all TAVR programs (48/50: 96%) addressed peri-procedural code status, yet only 26% had established policies. Temporarily rescinding DNR status until after TAVR was the norm (78%), yet time frames for reinstatement varied (38% <48 h post-TAVR; 44% 48 h-to-discharge; 18% >30 days post-discharge). For patients with fluctuating code status, no routine practices for discharge documentation were well-described. No clinically substantial differences by code status practice were noted in Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality risk score, peri-procedural or in-hospital cardiac arrest, or hospice disposition. Six programs maintaining DNR status recognized TAVR as a palliative procedure. Among programs categorically reversing patients' DNR status, the rationale for differing lengths of time to reinstatement reflect divergent views on accountability and reporting requirements. Marked heterogeneity exists in management of peri-procedural code status across TAVR programs, including timeframe for reestablishing DNR status post-procedure. These findings call for standardization of DNR decisions at specific care points (before/during/after TAVR) to ensure consistent alignment with patients' health-related goals and values.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Little is known about policies and practices for patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) who have a documented preference for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status at time of referral. We investigated how practices across TAVR programs align with goals of care for patients presenting with DNR status.
METHODS
Between June and September 2019, we conducted semi-structured interviews with TAVR coordinators from 52/73 invited programs (71%) in Washington and California (TAVR volume > 100/year:34%; 50-99:36%; 1-50:30%); 2 programs reported no TAVR in 2018. TAVR coordinators described peri-procedural code status policies and practices and how they accommodate patients' goals of care. We used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, stratified by programs' DNR practice, to examine differences in program size, patient characteristics and risk status, and outcomes.
RESULTS
Nearly all TAVR programs (48/50: 96%) addressed peri-procedural code status, yet only 26% had established policies. Temporarily rescinding DNR status until after TAVR was the norm (78%), yet time frames for reinstatement varied (38% <48 h post-TAVR; 44% 48 h-to-discharge; 18% >30 days post-discharge). For patients with fluctuating code status, no routine practices for discharge documentation were well-described. No clinically substantial differences by code status practice were noted in Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality risk score, peri-procedural or in-hospital cardiac arrest, or hospice disposition. Six programs maintaining DNR status recognized TAVR as a palliative procedure. Among programs categorically reversing patients' DNR status, the rationale for differing lengths of time to reinstatement reflect divergent views on accountability and reporting requirements.
CONCLUSIONS
Marked heterogeneity exists in management of peri-procedural code status across TAVR programs, including timeframe for reestablishing DNR status post-procedure. These findings call for standardization of DNR decisions at specific care points (before/during/after TAVR) to ensure consistent alignment with patients' health-related goals and values.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35945706
doi: 10.1111/jgs.17980
pmc: PMC9771878
mid: NIHMS1824985
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3378-3389Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL125195
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.
Références
Resuscitation. 2020 Jan 1;146:138-144
pubmed: 31785373
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1695-1705
pubmed: 30883058
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2477-84
pubmed: 25788234
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
JAMA Surg. 2014 Jul;149(7):631-2
pubmed: 24897945
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 May;66(5):924-929
pubmed: 29676777
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73(3):340-374
pubmed: 30031107
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Oct 1;82(4):638-9
pubmed: 24078422
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Dec;8(12):e002875
pubmed: 26643740
N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 6;376(14):1321-1331
pubmed: 28304219
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 May 28;73(20):2609-2635
pubmed: 31010719
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2014 Jan;99(1):42-3
pubmed: 24552029
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jan;175(1):5-6
pubmed: 25419993
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul 22;12(14):1328-1338
pubmed: 31320027
Age Ageing. 2021 Jan 8;50(1):147-152
pubmed: 32500916
N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 21;363(17):1597-607
pubmed: 20961243
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 28;374(17):1609-20
pubmed: 27040324
Resuscitation. 2021 Oct;167:242-250
pubmed: 34166743
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018 Oct;11(10):e004693
pubmed: 30354575
Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):843-8
pubmed: 20048678
BMC Anesthesiol. 2013 Jan 15;13:2
pubmed: 23320623
Circulation. 2021 Feb 2;143(5):e72-e227
pubmed: 33332150
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Jun 15;309:48-54
pubmed: 32199684
Ann Surg. 2012 Mar;255(3):418-23
pubmed: 22167006
Palliat Med. 2014 Sep;28(8):1000-25
pubmed: 24651708
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1706-1715
pubmed: 30883053
Anesthesiology. 1991 Mar;74(3):606-8
pubmed: 2001038
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Mar;69(3):616-617
pubmed: 33184851
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Apr;40(4):613-621
pubmed: 33819084
Ann Surg. 2018 Jan;267(1):66-72
pubmed: 28471764
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 21;12(4):e0175926
pubmed: 28430791
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Sep;34(9):2476-2483
pubmed: 31917079
Anesthesiology. 2021 Nov 1;135(5):781-787
pubmed: 34499085
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70(6):689-700
pubmed: 28693934
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 22;15(1):e0225939
pubmed: 31967987
Am J Med. 2022 Jul;135(7):810-812
pubmed: 35134366
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):383-391
pubmed: 30715097
Health Expect. 2016 Oct;19(5):1036-43
pubmed: 26275070
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 17;75(10):1208-1211
pubmed: 32164894
Resuscitation. 2019 Oct;143:208-211
pubmed: 31369792
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2187-98
pubmed: 21639811
JAMA Surg. 2013 Jan;148(1):14-21
pubmed: 23324834