There has been a spate of recent publications dealing with the lack of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantations in the elderly. The most recent indicates that only 8% of patients over age 75 years who have experienced a non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or STEMI receive an ICD largely due to the restriction of implantation within 40 days of the incident infarction because of the delayed repair of ventricular function after an MI and the uncertainty of ejection fraction measurements during this period. That article indicates that despite this delay, patients who receive an ICD had an improved survival over the subsequent 2 years, compared with those who did not ( JAMA. 2015;313[24]:2433-40 ). Some of my octogenarian friends might question whether improved survival and the prevention of sudden death is a benefit at that age.
An accompanying editorial suggests that a closer follow-up of these patients is warranted in order to improve the rate of implantation in those patients who are discharged so that they do not “fall through the cracks” and are lost to follow-up ( JAMA. 2015:313[24]:2429-30 ).
Although there has been a tapering off of the explosive use of ICDs in the United States, almost a quarter million devices were implanted between 2010 and 2011 ( Heart Rhythm. 2013 Apr;10[4]:e59-65 ). The U.S. number is roughly four times that of Western Europe. Primary prevention was the reason for implantation in 73.8%, and half of the implantations were in patients over 65; 29% were in the 70-79 age group, and 14% were octogenarians. A history of New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure was present in 82% and a myocardial infarction in 49%.
There are of course other reasons why the elderly may not receive an ICD. The most frequent are the presence of concomitant diseases like stroke, cancer, and chronic renal disease. However, many elderly do not wish to have their survival tied to a device that they have no control over. Some may view sudden death as an acceptable mortality outcome considering other alternatives. Certainly, adverse lifestyle changes at advanced age may be a reason for the reluctance to choose an ICD.
The application of our new technologies like ICDs, catheter-implanted aortic valves, and mini–left ventricular assist devices have been remarkably successful and have brought lifesaving interventions to thousands of patients. Their relative ease of application has led to a casualness in regard to appropriateness in patients with concomitant diseases, and particularly in the elderly.
The definition of who is elderly has changed dramatically in clinical trials from the mid–20th century when those studies excluded patients over 65. In today’s world, the definition of the elderly has become a slippery slope, as there is no age limit and the inclusion of octogenarians is not unusual. The observation that elderly postinfarction patients with decreased ejection fraction can experience improved survival needs to be evaluated in the light of important considerations of current and expected quality of life in individual patients, as well as their own mortality expectations.
Most of the studies examining implantation rates, extensively analyze the effect of comorbidity and cost benefit of implantation. They rarely deal with how quality of life of the patient and their own mortality expectation impacts on the decision for ICD implantation. Once implanted, removal of the device is often impossible and when possible, as with an ICD, raise important and difficult ethical questions for patient, family, and doctor.
For those of us who are octogenarians and treat octogenarians, these issues are first and foremost in the decision process. The decision to use these devices for the relatively short-term benefit may become an onerous burden for the very elderly whose future quality of life can become abruptly abbreviated by the aging process. Easy exodus from life by sudden death may unfortunately be prolonged by an ICD.
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
