ArticlePalliative medicine2021
Advance care planning and end-of-life care in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: The perspective of relatives.
Article in Palliative medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The difficult discussion on the deactivation of implantable cardioverter devices at the end of life: a systematic review.ESC heart failure · 2025Pooled it
- Deactivation of Cardiac Devices at the End of Life: Clinical and Ethical Challenges.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Expanding the Paradigm for Cardiovascular Palliative Care.Circulation · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the last phase of life of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and the practice of advance care planning in this population.
aimTo describe the last phase of life and advance care planning process of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and to assess relatives' satisfaction with treatment and care.
designMixed-methods study, including a survey and focus group study. SETTING/
participantsA survey among 170 relatives (response rate 59%) reporting about 154 deceased patients, and 5 subsequent focus groups with 23 relatives.
resultsRelatives reported that 38% of patients had a conversation with a healthcare professional about implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. Patients' and relatives' lack of knowledge about device functioning and the perceived lack of time of healthcare professionals were frequently mentioned barriers to advance care planning. Twenty-four percent of patients experienced a shock in the last month of life, which were, according to relatives, distressing for 74% of patients and 73% of relatives. Forty-two to sixty-one percent of relatives reported to be satisfied with different aspects of end-of-life care, such as the way in which wishes of the patient were respected. Quality of death was scored higher for patients with a deactivated device than those with an active device (6.74 vs 5.67 on a 10-point scale,
conclusionsImplantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation was discussed with a minority of patients. Device shocks were reported to be distressing to patients and relatives. Relatives of patients with a deactivated device reported a higher quality of death compared to relatives of patients with an active device.
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.