Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28210847›Full record

ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2017

Ethical Considerations in the Long-Term Ventricular Assist Device Patient.

Amanda Cai, Howard J Eisen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current heart failure reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amanda CaiDepartment of Medicine, Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Howard J EisenDrexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. heisen@drexelmed.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAs the heart failure population continues to age, the need for definitive therapies such as ventricular assist devices (VADs) to extend life and alleviate suffering from end-stage disease directly increases. The goal of this article is to examine the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice within the context of long-term VAD patients. RECENT

findingsSurvival rates in VAD-implanted patients have improved in parallel with modernization of device design and surgical technique, reaching that of cardiac transplantation at 1 year post-procedure. Even the sickest patients, those once deemed transplant-ineligible, have been proven to benefit from device implantation and in some cases to a point of becoming eligible for cardiac transplantation. Nevertheless, VAD implantation remains a high-risk procedure with in-hospital mortality rates reaching up to 27% post-procedure and requires intensive upkeep even after successful implantation. Furthermore, end-of-life decisions are complicated by consideration of device deactivation in patients who may not die immediately from an otherwise lethal pathophysiology. Ethical considerations in selection of patients, goals of implantation, and length of therapy become important to preserve the efficacy of treatment and maximize resource utilization. Advanced directives, shared decision-making, and multi-disciplinary approach to treatment have been shown to improve outcomes with respect to both survival and quality of life.

Indexed as

AgingEquipment DesignHeart-Assist DevicesHeart FailureHeart TransplantationHumansPatient SelectionQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeAdvanced heart failureEthical considerationsVentricular assist device

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.