ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2014
[Dying with/despite a pacemaker].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Death of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) is a common scenario in the ICU. Given the demographic trends and the increasing implantation rate of such devices reinforces the fact that ICU physicians must be aware of the burden and consequences of these systems in the end of life care of dying patients. The possible deactivation of a CIED confronts the responsible physicians with particularly complex clinical, ethical, and legal problems. Most deaths are often preceded by a long illness trajectory and finally by altering the therapeutic goals. Withholding or withdrawing therapy are the results of these processes. General agreement exists that ICD deactivation in dying patients may be ethically permissible. The patient's consent is mandatory. The practices and attitudes associated with pacemaker deactivation differ significantly from those associated with ICD deactivation. It is therefore crucial to be aware of the legal situation in the jurisdiction in which the physician is practicing. The decision to deactivate CIEDs should be part of a well deliberated and transparent process. Ethical and legal guidance should be readily available to counsel and support these difficult decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24384727What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.