ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vessels2013
Are ICD recipients able to foresee if they want to withdraw therapy or deactivate defibrillator shocks?
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of patient decision aids for cardiovascular decisions: systematic review with sex/gender-based analysis.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Defibrillator exchange in the elderly.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation and advance care planning: a focus group study.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2020Article
- Improving implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation discussions in admitted patients made DNR and comfort care.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
- Octo- and nonagenarians' outlook on life and death when living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2018Article
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator knowledge and end-of-life device deactivation: A cross-sectional survey.Palliative medicine · 2018Article
- Patient perceptions of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation discussions: A qualitative study.SAGE open medicine · 2016Article
- Making decisions about implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from implantation to end of life: an integrative review of patients' perspectives.The patient · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.