ArticleCirculation reports2025
Status of Physician-Ordered Advance Code in Patients With Acute Heart Failure.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The physician ordered advance code (PAC), a treatment code used in Japanese hospitals based on the physician orders for life sustaining treatment paradigm, plays a crucial role in guiding treatment decisions for patients with acute heart failure (AHF). However, data on the clinical characteristics, decision-making processes, and outcomes associated with PAC in Japanese patients are limited. Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,203 AHF patients across multiple centers in Japan. Patients were categorized based on the presence or absence of PAC orders; clinical characteristics and mortality outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Patients with PAC orders were significantly older, more often female, and had lower activities of daily living scores. Cognitive impairment was markedly more prevalent in the PAC than non-PAC group. PAC decisions were primarily communicated to family members rather than to patients themselves, with only 7.3% of patients directly informed. The median time from admission to final PAC order was 2 days, with 74.1% finalized within 5 days. PAC orders frequently permitted intravenous therapies, but limited resuscitative measures in only 15% of patients. In-hospital and 2-year mortality rates were substantially higher in the PAC than non-PAC group. Conclusions: PAC designation reflected poor clinical status and was linked to significantly worse mortality outcome. Enhancing shared decision-making and aligning PAC with patient values are essential steps to optimize care for this vulnerable population.
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.