Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450154›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels2013

Are ICD recipients able to foresee if they want to withdraw therapy or deactivate defibrillator shocks?

Ingela Thylén, Debra K Moser, Misook L Chung, Jennifer Miller, Christina Fluur, Anna Strömberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingela ThylénDivision of Nursing Sciences, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Department of Cardiology, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
Debra K MoserCollege of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Misook L ChungCollege of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Jennifer MillerCollege of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Christina FluurDepartment of Cardiology, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
Anna StrömbergDivision of Nursing Sciences, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Department of Cardiology, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
University of Kentucky · USCounty Administrative Board · SELinköping University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExpert consensus statements on management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) emphasize the importance of having discussions about deactivation before and after implantation. These statements were developed with limited patient input. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with patients' experiences of end-of-life discussions, attitudes towards such discussions, and attitudes towards withdrawal of therapy (i.e., generator replacement and deactivation) at end-of-life, in a large national cohort of ICD-recipients.

methodsWe enrolled 3067 ICD-patients, administrating the End-of-Life-ICD-Questionnaire.

resultsMost (86%) had not discussed ICD-deactivation with their physician. Most (69%) thought discussions were best at end-of-life, but 40% stated that they never wanted the physician to initiate a discussion. Those unwilling to discuss deactivation were younger, had experienced battery replacement, had a longer time since implantation, and had better quality-of-life. Those with psychological morbidity were more likely to desire a discussion about deactivation. Many patients (39%) were unable to foresee what to decide about deactivation in an anticipated terminal condition. Women, those without depression, and those with worse ICD-related experiences were more indecisive about withdrawal of therapy. Irrespective of shock experiences, those who could take a stand regarding deactivation chose to keep shock therapies active in many cases (39%).

conclusionsDespite consensus statements recommending discussions about ICD-deactivation at the end-of-life, such discussion usually do not occur. There is substantial ambivalence and indecisiveness on the part of most ICD-patients in this nationwide survey about having these discussions and about expressing desires about deactivation in an anticipated end-of-life situation.

Indexed as

ArrhythmiasAttitudesEnd-of-lifeExperiencesImplantable cardioverter defibrillatorPatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID29450154
PMCPMC5801008
OpenAlexW2137845996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.