ReviewEuropean heart journal2026
Decision-making for older adults with advanced heart disease: a framework for balancing benefit versus futility.
Review in European heart journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and external validation of a composite biomarker-based machine learning model for sarcopenia risk stratification in patients with cardiovascular disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical futility in the cardiovascular care of older adults presents unique challenges that necessitate a nuanced understanding of both clinical and ethical dimensions. This state-of-the-art review explores the evolving concept of futility in the context of an ageing patient population and expanding armamentarium purported to treat even the most dire of cardiovascular diseases. The first objective is to delineate a framework for clinicians to elicit the different dimensions of futility, their relative importance to the patient, and their potential for improvement with the intervention being considered. Definitions are elaborated for quantitative futility-interventions with statistically negligible benefits-and qualitative futility-interventions misaligned with patient-specific goals and values. The second objective is to highlight the determinants of prohibitive risk, from the cardiovascular disease and procedural morbidity, to competing non-cardiovascular risks and frailty. A distinction is made between frailty and futility, and manifestations of severe frailty are reviewed based on the A-B-C-D-E mnemonic. The third and final objective is to discuss strategies and actionable approaches to care for patients once futility has been invoked. In addition to ongoing compassionate dialogue with the patient and family members, early initiation and aggressive pursuit of palliative care measures is beneficial for symptom control and quality of life. Ultimately, informed shared decision-making with a patient-centered philosophy is essential to uphold dignity and enhance the quality of life for older adults facing complex cardiovascular conditions.
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.