Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31537636›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2020

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation and advance care planning: a focus group study.

Rik Stoevelaar, Arianne Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, Anne Geert van Driel, Rozemarijn L van Bruchem-Visser, Dominic Amj Theuns, Rohit E Bhagwandien, Agnes Van der Heide, Judith Ac Rietjens

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. A pilot study on the effect of advance care planning implementation on healthcare utilisation and satisfaction in patients with advanced heart failure.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators at the end of life: future perspectives on clinical practice.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rik StoevelaarPublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands r.stoevelaar@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5101-5654
Arianne Brinkman-StoppelenburgPublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anne Geert van DrielCardiology, Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Rozemarijn L van Bruchem-VisserInternal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Dominic Amj TheunsCardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rohit E BhagwandienCardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Agnes Van der HeidePublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith Ac RietjensPublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImplantable cardioverter defibrillators can treat life-threatening arrhythmias, but may negatively influence the last phase of life if not deactivated. Advance care planning conversations can prepare patients for future decision-making about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. This study aimed at gaining insight in the experiences of patients with advance care planning conversations about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

methodsIn this qualitative study, we held five focus groups with 41 patients in total. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed thematically, using the constant comparative method, whereby themes emerging from the data are compared with previously emerged themes.

resultsMost patients could imagine deciding to have their implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivated, for instance because the benefits of an active device no longer outweigh the harm of unwanted shocks, when having another life-limiting illness, or when relatives would think this would be in their best interest. Some patients expressed a need for advance care planning conversations with a healthcare professional about deactivation, but few had had these. Others did not, saying they solely focused on living. Some patients were hesitant to record their preferences about deactivation in advance care directives, because they were unsure whether their current preferences would reflect future preferences.

conclusionsAlthough patients expressed a need for more information, advance care planning conversations about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation seemed to be uncommon. Deactivation should be more frequently addressed by healthcare professionals, tailored to the disease stage of the patient and readiness to discuss this topic.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDefibrillators, ImplantablePatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceTerminal CareAgedArrhythmias, CardiacAttitude to DeathChoice BehaviorClinical Decision-MakingElectric CountershockFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleadvance care planningdecision makingdefibrillators, implantablefocus groupsqualitative researchterminal carewithholding treatment

Identifiers

PMID31537636
PMCPMC6993024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.