Making decisions about amputation for chronic limb threatening ischaemia

Chronic limb threatening ischaemia causes pain, loss of function and complex wounds, necessitating urgent interventions. While growing options for minimally invasive revascularisation make operating on frail and older persons safer, the challenge is knowing when to stop this option and offer amputation. Decisions about amputation are difficult for the person, or for the family who act as substitute decision-makers. Timely treatment decisions are important to optimise clinical outcomes but do not always align with outcomes that are acceptable to patients.

To provide a philosophically-based understanding of patient/family experiences of making decisions for chronic limb threatening ischaemia.

Longitudinal qualitative study using Heideggerian phenomenology. Patient and family participants were recruited from three sites. Semi-structured interviews occurred at two time points: soon after advice to consider major amputation, and for those who experienced amputation, six-months post-operatively. The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative studies (COREQ) checklist guided this report.

Variable timelines, disease progression, and interventions were encountered prior to confronting the possibility of amputation. Decision-making was interpreted as an initial irresoluteness (neglecting or renouncing decisions). For most, this was eventually followed by a resoluteness where participants either turned away or towards amputation, according to one's preferred mode of suffering, and thus owning the decision to turn. Those who opted for amputation often experienced better-than-anticipated outcomes.

Patients and families had difficulty making decisions about amputation. Clinicians may have been complicit in the neglecting and renouncing of decisions and have an important role in sharing decision-making through their authentic discourse.

Chronic limb threatening ischaemia requires complex discussions to support decisions and shared decision-making requires clinician presence and engagement in discourse. Patients and family members benefit from more time to experience and process the phenomenon as they move towards owning their decision about amputation.