ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Advancing palliative care in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: identifying evidence gaps and future research priorities.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock are life-threatening cardiovascular emergencies that impose substantial physical, psychological, and decisional burdens on patients and caregivers. Palliative care, defined as holistic, person-centered care focused on preventing and relieving symptoms and stressors of serious illnesses to improve quality of life for patients and caregivers, is increasingly recognized as an essential component of comprehensive cardiovascular care. Objectives: We therefore conducted a narrative review to synthesize current evidence regarding inpatient palliative care in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock; identify critical gaps in research and practice; and propose future directions to guide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers, while centering patients and caregivers. Discussion: In the U.S., palliative care utilization for patients with cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock has increased significantly over the last two decades. However, the literature on palliative care in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock is limited, demonstrating that palliative care consultation is associated with increased do-not-resuscitate orders and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, as well as decreased healthcare utilization and subsequent costs. However, patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes have not been studied. Major palliative care research gaps exist in measurement, equity, education, and delivery models, including the optimal roles of generalist vs. specialist palliative care. Future research should prioritize patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, comparative effectiveness of different palliative care delivery models, implementation science, health equity, and education and training of generalist palliative care skills to optimize palliative care integration for cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock to improve the lived experience of these patients and their caregivers.
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.