Limitation of life sustaining measures in neurocritical care: sex, timing, and advance directive

Abstract

BackgroundThe limitation of life sustaining treatments (LLST) causes ethical dilemmas even in patients faced with poor prognosis, which applies to many patients admitted to a Neurocritical Care Unit (NCCU). The effects of social and cultural aspects on LLST in an NCCU population remain poorly studied.MethodsAll NCCU patients between 01.2018 and 08.2021 were included. Medical records were reviewed for: demographics, diagnosis, severity of disease, and outcome. Advance directives (AD) and LLST discussions were reviewed evaluating timing, degree, and reason for LLST. Social/cultural factors (nationality, language spoken, religion, marital status, relationship to/sex of legal representative) were noted. Associations between these factors and the patients’ sex, LLST timing, and presence of AD were evaluated.ResultsOut of 2975 patients, 12% of men and 10.5% of women underwent LLST (p = 0.30). Women, compared to men, more commonly received withdrawal instead of withholding of life sustaining treatments (57.5 vs. 45.1%, p = 0.028) despite comparable disease severity. Women receiving LLST were older (73 ± 11.7 vs. 69 ± 14.9 years, p = 0.005) and often without a partner (43.8 vs. 25.8%, p = 0.001) compared to men. AD were associated with female sex and early LLST, but not with an increased in-hospital mortality (57.1 vs. 75.2% of patients with and without AD respectively).ConclusionsIn patients receiving LLST, the presence of an AD was associated with an increase of early LLST, but not with an increased in-hospital mortality. This supports the notion that the presence of an AD is primarily an expression of the patients’ will but does not per se predestine the patient for an unfavorable outcome.