SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Preferences for life-sustaining treatments and advance directives among heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvance directives (ADs) play a fundamental role in guiding end-of-life (EOL) care, yet patient preferences regarding surrogate decision-making, life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) fluctuate extensively. Understanding these preferences is crucial for person-centered and culturally sensitive advance care planning (ACP), particularly heart failure patients.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate patient preferences regarding ADs. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for studies published up to March 6, 2024 that reported on preferences related to surrogate decision-making, LSTs, or CPR in patients with heart failure. Data was pooled using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of outlier studies. Risk of publication bias was evaluated using Begg's and Egger's tests.
resultsThirteen studies involving varied international populations were included. The pooled estimate of patients preferring surrogate decision-making was 53.66% (95% CI: 16.9%-90.43%), increasing to 71% (95% CI: 51.64%-91.34%) after excluding an outlier. Preference for receiving LSTs was 48.8% (95% CI: 37.84%-59.77%), increasing to 52.28% (95% CI: 35.95%-59.88%) after exclusion of one study. The pooled proportion of patients preferring to refuse CPR was 43.32% (95% CI: 29.13%-57.52%). Cultural factors, health status, and prior communication influenced these preferences. No significant publication bias was identified.
conclusionPreferences regarding ADs among patients with heart failure are diverse and influenced by cultural setting, disease morbidity, and prior ACP discussions. A substantial proportion of patients prefer surrogate decision-making and limited life-prolonging interventions. These findings highlight the need for culturally sensitive, personalized ACP that accommodates developing patient values and decision-making roles over time.
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.