ArticleCureus2024
Complete Heart Block in a Patient Declining Pacemaker Implantation: A Discussion on Patient-Centered Care and Shared Decision-Making.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is the standard of care in patients with complete heart block (CHB) and second-degree type II atrioventricular (AV) block irrespective of patient symptoms when the conduction abnormality is irreversible. CHB generally constitutes a medical emergency that can be fatal if not urgently treated. This is in contrast to first-degree AV block and second-degree type I AV block, which require PPM implantation only in very special circumstances. While second-degree type II AV block is considered to be at high risk for progression to CHB, this does not occur with first-degree and second-degree type I AV blocks. Here, we present a patient who demonstrated over a number of years a progression from first-degree to second-degree type I AV block and then, quite unexpectedly, to CHB. Despite multiple discussions of the benefits of PPM implantation with cardiology staff, the patient elected to forgo the procedure. This case discusses patient-centered care and the therapeutic dilemma that can develop when there is an incongruence between the principles of beneficence and patient autonomy.
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.