ReviewThe patient2014
Making decisions about implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from implantation to end of life: an integrative review of patients' perspectives.
Review in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The difficult discussion on the deactivation of implantable cardioverter devices at the end of life: a systematic review.ESC heart failure · 2025Pooled it
- 2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2020Guideline
- 2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2020Guideline
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Development and piloting of four decision aids for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in different media formats.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021Trial
- Patient Information Needs and Decision-Making Before a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device: A Qualitative Study Utilizing Social Media Data.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2025Article
- Patients' Perspective on Termination of Pacemaker Therapy-A Cross-Sectional Anonymous Survey among Patients Carrying a Pacemaker in Germany.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Information Needs and Experiences of People Living With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Qualitative Content Analysis of Reddit Posts.JMIR cardio · 2023Article
- Deciphering the Diversity of Mental Models in Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Knowledge Graph Representation of Public Data Using Natural Language Processing.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Patients' knowledge and concerns about using the implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and its correlates: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- The impact of government-mandated shared decision-making for implantable defibrillators: A natural experiment.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2022Article
- A Novel Method to Predict Mortality and Length of Stay after Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2021Review
- Advance care planning and end-of-life care in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: The perspective of relatives.Palliative medicine · 2021Article
- The Importance of Mental Models in Implementation Science.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Related Factors Associated With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Acceptance.Cardiology and therapy · 2020Article
- A multicenter trial of a shared DECision Support Intervention for Patients offered implantable Cardioverter-DEfibrillators: DECIDE-ICD rationale, design, Medicare changes, and pilot data.American heart journal · 2020Article
- Palliative cardiovascular care: The right patient at the right time.Clinical cardiology · 2020Review
- Co-construction of health technology assessment recommendations with patients: An example with cardiac defibrillator replacement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are used for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. Patients considering ICD therapy are faced with several preference-sensitive decisions. Our aim was to explore patients' ICD decision-making experiences from the decision to implant to the consideration of deactivation at end of life. We conducted an integrative review using Whittemore and Knafl's five steps. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane library were searched from 2000 to 2013. Eligible studies focused on the patient response regarding ICD decision-making. Key themes were identified and used as a framework to discuss findings through the chronological course of decisions faced by these patients. Of 354 potential citations, 25 articles were included. The trajectory of key decision points was whether or not to initiate ICD therapy, replace the battery, and deactivate at end of life. Three common themes from patients' perspectives were the influence of the patient-practitioner consultation on knowledge uptake, patients' decision-making preference, and their desire to live. Patients faced with ICD-related decisions often misunderstood the functionality of their ICD, or overestimated its benefit. They also expressed mixed preferences for the desire to be involved in decisions. The decisions around ICDs are particularly difficult for patients given the life and death trade off. Clinicians involved in the care of these patients could better support them by verifying their understanding and eliciting their preferences. Using a shared decision-making approach has the potential to achieve improved patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24668214What 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.