Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31867773›Full record

ReviewClinical cardiology2020

Decision-making regarding primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among older adults.

Paul L Hess, Daniel D Matlock, Sana M Al-Khatib

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  7. Downgrade of cardiac defibrillator devices to pacemakers in elderly heart failure patients: clinical considerations and the importance of shared decision-making.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2021
    Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul L HessRocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3022-764X
Daniel D MatlockRocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado.
Sana M Al-KhatibDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Rocky Mountain MS Center · USClinical Research Institute · US

Funding

A Multicenter Trial of a Shared DECision Support Intervention for Patients offered implantable Cardioverter-DEfibrillators: DECIDE - ICD TrialR01HL136403 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI MATLOCK, DANIEL D · 2017 to 2021
$3.8M
American Heart Association 19CDA34760126NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL136403NIH HHS R01HL136403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted for the purpose of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Shared decision-making prior to device implantation is guideline-recommended and payer-mandated. This article summarizes patient and provider attitudes toward device placement, device efficacy and effectiveness, potential periprocedural complications, long-term events such as shocks, quality of life, costs, and shared decision-making principles and recommendations. Most patients eligible for an ICD anticipate more than 10 years of survival. Physicians are less likely to offer an ICD to patients ≥80 years of age given a perceived lack of benefit. There is a dearth of data from randomized clinical trials addressing device efficacy among older patients; there is a need for more research in this area. However, currently available data support the use of ICDs irrespective of age provided life expectancy exceeds 1 year. Advanced age is independently associated with complications at the time of device placement but not the risk of device infection. The risk of inappropriate shock may be comparable or lower than that of younger patients. While quality of life is generally not adversely impacted by an ICD, a subset of patients experience post-traumatic stress disorder. ICDs are cost-effective from societal and health care sector perspectives; however, out-of-pocket costs vary according to insurance type and level. Shared decision-making encounters may be incremental and iterative in nature. Providers are encouraged to partner with their patients, providing them counsel tailored to their values, preferences, and clinical presentation inclusive of age.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDefibrillators, ImplantablePatient SelectionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAttitude of Health PersonnelDeath, Sudden, CardiacDecision Making, SharedElectric CountershockHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHeart FailureHumansPatient ParticipationPrimary PreventionRecovery of Functiondecision-makingimplantable cardioverter defibrillatorolder adults

Identifiers

PMID31867773
PMCPMC7021655
OpenAlexW2995927847

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.