Dataset Information

Reversals and limitations on high-intensity, life-sustaining treatments.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Critically ill patients often receive high-intensity life sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), although they can be ineffective and eventually undesired. Determining the risk factors associated with reversals in LST goals can improve patient and provider appreciation for the natural history and epidemiology of critical care and inform decision making around the (continued) use of LSTs.

Methods

This is a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients receiving life sustaining treatment in an academic tertiary hospital from 2009 to 2013. Deidentified patient electronic medical record data was collected via the clinical data warehouse to study the outcomes of treatment limiting Comfort Care and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Extended multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate the association of patient and clinical factors with subsequent treatment limiting orders.

Results

10,157 patients received life-sustaining treatment while initially Full Code (allowing all resuscitative measures). Of these, 770 (8.0%) transitioned to Comfort Care (with discontinuation of any life-sustaining treatments) while 1,669 (16%) patients received new DNR orders that reflect preferences to limit further life-sustaining treatment options. Patients who were older (Hazard Ratio(HR) 1.37 [95% CI 1.28-1.47] per decade), with cerebrovascular disease (HR 2.18 [95% CI 1.69-2.81]), treated by the Medical ICU (HR 1.92 [95% CI 1.49-2.49]) and Hematology-Oncology (HR 1.87 [95% CI 1.27-2.74]) services, receiving vasoactive infusions (HR 1.76 [95% CI 1.28, 2.43]) or continuous renal replacement (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.34, 2.48]) were more likely to transition to Comfort Care. Any new DNR orders were more likely for patients who were older (HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.38-1.48] per decade), female (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.17-1.44]), with cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.25-1.67]) or metastatic solid cancers (HR 1.92 [95% CI 1.48-2.49]), or treated by Medical ICU (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.42-1.86]), Hematology-Oncology (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.33-1.98]) and Cardiac Care Unit-Heart Failure (HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.15-1.72]).

Conclusion

Decisions to reverse or limit treatment goals occurs after more than 1 in 13 trials of LST, and is associated with older female patients, receiving non-ventilator forms of LST, cerebrovascular disease, and treatment by certain medical specialty services.

SUBMITTER: Chavez G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5830043 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisions of withholding or withdrawing life sustaining-treatments in emergency department are part of current practice but the decision-making process remains poorly described in the literature. STUDY OBJECTIVE:We conducted a study in two phases, the first comprising a retrospective chart review study of patients dying in the ED and the second comprising survey study of health care workers at 10 urban emergency departments in France. METHOD:In a first step, we analyzed medical records based on fifteen criteria of the decision-making process grouped into four categories: the collegiality, the traceability, the management and the communication as recommended by the international guidelines. In a second step, we conducted an auto-administrated survey to assess how the staff members (medical, paramedical) feel with the decision-making process. RESULTS:There were 273 deaths which occurred in the ED over the study period and we included 145 (53.1%) patients. The first-step analysis revealed that the traceability of the decision and the information given to patient or the relatives were the most reported points according to the recommendations. Three of the ten emergency departments had developed a written procedure. The collegial discussion and the traceability of the prognosis assessment were significantly increased in emergency department with a written procedure as well as management of pain, comfort care, and the communication with the patient or the relatives. In the second-step analysis, among the 735 staff members asked to take part in the survey, 287 (39.0%) answered. The medical and paramedical staff expressed difficult experience regarding the announcement and the communication with the patient and the relatives. CONCLUSION:The management of the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments must be improved in emergency departments according to the guidelines. A standard written procedure could be useful in clinical practice despite the lack of experienced difference between centers with and without procedures.