Limitation Of Life-sustaining Treatment Research Articles

Increased 30-day mortality in very old ICU patients with COVID-19 compared to patients with respiratory failure without COVID-19.

PurposeThe number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST.MethodsPatients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death.Results693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients.ConclusionVery old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06642-z.

Experiences and attitudes of medical professionals on treatment of end-of-life patients in intensive care units in the Republic of Croatia: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundDecisions about limitations of life sustaining treatments (LST) are made for end-of-life patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this research was to explore the professional and ethical attitudes and experiences of medical professionals on treatment of end-of-life patients in ICUs in the Republic of Croatia.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among physicians and nurses working in surgical, medical, neurological, and multidisciplinary ICUs in the total of 9 hospitals throughout Croatia using a questionnaire with closed and open type questions. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to reduce data to a smaller set of summary variables. Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyse the differences between two groups and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to analyse the differences between more than two groups.ResultsLess than third of participants (29.2%) stated they were included in the decision-making process, and physicians are much more included than nurses (p < 0.001). Sixty two percent of participants stated that the decision-making process took place between physicians. Eighteen percent of participants stated that ‘do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitations’ orders were frequently made in their ICUs. A decision to withdraw inotropes and antibiotics was frequently made as stated by 22.4% and 19.9% of participants, respectively. Withholding/withdrawing of LST were ethically acceptable to 64.2% of participants. Thirty seven percent of participants thought there was a significant difference between withholding and withdrawing LST from an ethical standpoint. Seventy-nine percent of participants stated that a verbal or written decision made by a capable patient should be respected. Physicians were more inclined to respect patient’s wishes then nurses with high school education (p = 0.038). Nurses were more included in the decision-making process in neurological than in surgical, medical, or multidisciplinary ICUs (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.023 respectively). Male participants in comparison to female (p = 0.002), and physicians in comparison to nurses with high school and college education (p < 0.001) displayed more liberal attitudes about LST limitation.ConclusionsDNACPR orders are not commonly made in Croatian ICUs, even though limitations of LST were found ethically acceptable by most of the participants. Attitudes of paternalistic and conservative nature were expected considering Croatia’s geographical location in Southern Europe.

Infant mode of death in the neonatal intensive care unit: A systematic scoping review.

To characterize literature that describes infant mode of death and to clarify how limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) is defined and rationalized. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, English-language, and included number of infant deaths by mode out of all infant deaths in the NICU and/or delivery room. 58 included studies were primarily published in the last two decades from North American and European centers. There was variation in rates of infant mode of death by study, with some showing an increase in deaths following limitation of LST over time. Limitation of LST was defined by the intervention withheld/withdrawn, the relationship between the two practices, and prior frameworks. Themes for limiting LST included diagnoses, low predicted survival and/or quality of life, futility, and suffering. Limitation of LST is a common infant mode of death, although rates, study definitions, and clinical rationale for this practice are variable.

Limitation of life-sustaining treatment and patient involvement in decision-making: a retrospective study of a Danish COVID-19 patient cohort

BackgroundThe coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the risk of an extensive overload of the healthcare systems have elucidated the need to make decisions on the level of life-sustaining treatment for patients requiring hospitalisation. The purpose of the study was to investigate the proportion and characteristics of COVID-19 patients with limitation of life-sustaining treatment decisions and the degree of patient involvement in the decisions.MethodsA retrospective observational descriptive study was conducted in three Danish regional hospitals, looking at all patients ≥ 18 years of age admitted in 2020 with COVID-19 as the primary diagnosis. Lists of hospitalised patients admitted due to COVID-19 were extracted. The data registration included age, gender, comorbidities, including mental state, body mass index, frailty, recent hospital admissions, COVID-19 life-sustaining treatment, ICU admission, decisions on limitations of life-sustaining treatment before and during current hospitalisation, hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 476 patients were included. For 7% (33/476), a decision about limitation of life-sustaining treatment had been made prior to hospital admission. At the time of admission, one or more limitations of life-sustaining treatment were registered for 16% (75/476) of patients. During the admission, limitation decisions were made for an additional 11 patients, totaling 18% (86/476). For 40% (34/86), the decisions were either made by or discussed with the patient. The decisions not made by patients were made by physicians. For 36% (31/86), no information was disclosed about patient involvement.ConclusionsLife-sustaining treatment limitation decisions were made for 18% of a COVID-19 patient cohort. Hereof, more than a third of the decisions had been made before hospital admission. Many records lacked information on patient involvement in the decisions.

Ethical and Social Issues for Health Care Providers in the Intensive Care Unit during the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan: a Questionnaire Survey

This questionnaire-based observational study was conducted in July 2020 with the aim of understanding the ethical and social issues faced by health care providers (HCPs) registered with the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine in intensive care units (ICUs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There were 200 questionnaire respondents, and we analyzed the responses of 189 members who had been involved in COVID-19 treatment in ICUs. The ethical and social issues that HCPs recognized during the pandemic were difficulties in the decision-making process with patients’ families, limitations of life-sustaining treatment, lack of palliative care, and inadequate mental support for patients’ families and HCPs. Regarding decision-making on issues of clinical ethics during the pandemic, more than half of the respondents thought they had failed to provide sufficient palliative care to patients and responded that they experienced moral distress. The free-text responses on moral distress revealed issues such as unusual treatment and care, restricted visits, challenging situations for HCPs, and psychological burden. Additionally, 38.1% of respondents experienced episodes of social prejudice or discrimination and 4.7% experienced a shortage of medical resources. Our study result shows that the moral distress of HCPs was caused by difficulties in patient-centered decision-making and insufficient medical care to patients and their families. These were caused mainly by a lack of communication due to the stronger implementation of infection control measures. We believe that it is important to address ethical and social issues during a pandemic in order to provide appropriate medical care and prevent burnout among HCPs.

The role of perinatal palliative care following prenatal diagnosis of major, incurable fetal anomalies: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

To describe prenatal decision-making processes and birth plans in pregnancies amenable to planning perinatal palliative care. Multicentre prospective observational study. Nine Multidisciplinary Centres for Prenatal Diagnosis of the Paris-Ile-de-France region. All cases of major and incurable fetal anomaly eligible for TOP where limitation of life-sustaining treatments for the neonate was discussed in the prenatal period between 2015 and 2016. Cases of congenital defects amenable to perinatal palliative care were prospectively included in each centre. Prenatal diagnosis, decision-making process, type of birth plan, birth characteristics, pregnancy and neonatal outcome were collected prospectively and anonymously. Final decision reached following discussions in the antenatal period. We identified 736 continuing pregnancies with a diagnosis of a severe fetal condition eligible for TOP. Perinatal palliative care was considered in 102/736 (13.9%) pregnancies (106 infants); discussions were multidisciplinary in 99/106 (93.4%) cases. Prenatal birth plans involved life-sustaining treatment limitation and comfort care in 73/736 (9.9%) of the pregnancies. The main reason for planning palliative care at birth was short-term inevitable death in 39 cases (53.4%). In all, 76/106 (71.7%) infants were born alive, and 18/106 (17%) infants were alive at last follow-up, including four with a perinatal palliative care birth plan. Only a small proportion of severe and incurable fetal disorders were potentially amenable to limitation of life-sustaining interventions. Perinatal palliative care may not be considered a universal alternative to termination of pregnancy. Perinatal palliative care is planned in 10% of continuing pregnancies with a major and incurable fetal condition eligible for TOP.

COVID-19 Palliative and End-of-Life Care Plan: Development and Audit of Outcomes.

Objectives:Palliative care (PC) referral in serious and critical COVID-19 improves decision-making, health resource utilisation, end-of-life symptom management and family support. In this study, we explored developing a systematic decision-making matrix for PC referral in COVID-19 and audited its outcomes.Materials and Methods:A team of interdisciplinary experts developed a hospital COVID-19 PC plan. PC referral and outcomes of PC referral in hospitalised COVID-19 patients were audited.Results:Out of 1575 inpatients, 1066 (67.7%) had mild and 509 (32.3%) had serious and critical COVID-19 illness. Among 50 (3.1%) referred to PC, 5 (0.4%) had mild and 45 (8.8%) had serious and critical COVID-19 illness. Out of 45 serious and critical COVID-19 patients referred to PC, 38 (84%) received end-of-life care (EOLC), 4 (9%) self-discharged against medical advice and 3 (7%) recovered. Forty-seven (94%) were referred for goals-of-care discussion. About 78% received opioids, 70% benzodiazepines and 42% haloperidol for symptom management. Among 45 serious and critical COVID-19 patients referred to PC, foregoing life-sustaining treatment was documented in 43 (96%) but implemented only in 23 (53%). Out of 38 who received EOLC, ICU was the place of death in 31 (82%) and ward in 7 (18%).Conclusion:Despite interdisciplinary experts developing a hospital COVID-19 PC, low referral of serious and critical COVID-19 patients to PC was observed. PC referral enabled access to management of end-of-life symptoms and facilitated limitation of life-sustaining treatment in some COVID-19 patients with serious illness. Educating critical care physicians about the scope of PC in the COVID-19 setting might improve PC referral.

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study

End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. None.

Natural Language Processing to Identify Advance Care Planning Documentation in a Multisite Pragmatic Clinical Trial

ContextLarge multisite clinical trials studying decision-making when facing serious illness require an efficient method for abstraction of advance care planning (ACP) documentation from clinical text documents. However, the current gold standard method of manual chart review is time-consuming and unreliable. ObjectivesTo evaluate the ability to use natural language processing (NLP) to identify ACP documention in clinical notes from patients participating in a multisite trial. MethodsPatients with advanced cancer followed in three disease-focused oncology clinics at Duke Health, Mayo Clinic, and Northwell Health were identified using administrative data. All outpatient and inpatient notes from patients meeting inclusion criteria were extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) between March 2018 and March 2019. NLP text identification software with semi-automated chart review was applied to identify documentation of four ACP domains: (1) conversations about goals of care, (2) limitation of life-sustaining treatment, (3) involvement of palliative care, and (4) discussion of hospice. The performance of NLP was compared to gold standard manual chart review. Results435 unique patients with 79,797 notes were included in the study. In our validation data set, NLP achieved F1 scores ranging from 0.84 to 0.97 across domains compared to gold standard manual chart review. NLP identified ACP documentation in a fraction of the time required by manual chart review of EHRs (1-5 minutes per patient for NLP, vs. 30-120 minutes for manual abstraction). ConclusionNLP is more efficient and as accurate as manual chart review for identifying ACP documentation in studies with large patient cohorts.

An Interprofessional Process for the Limitation of Life-Sustaining Treatments at the End of Life in France

ContextThe provision of potentially non-beneficial life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) remains a challenging problem. In 2005, legislation in France established an interprofessional process by which non-beneficial LSTs could be withheld or withdrawn, permitting exploration of the effects of such a legally-protected process and its implementation. ObjectivesTo characterize intensive care unit (ICU) interprofessional team decision-making and consensus-building practices regarding withholding and withdrawing of LSTs in two Parisian hospitals and to explore physician and nurse perceptions of and experiences with these practices. MethodsThis was an exploratory qualitative study utilizing thematic analysis of semi-structured, in-depth interviews of physicians and nurses purposively sampled based on level of training and experience from two hospitals in Paris, France. ResultsA total of 25 participants were interviewed. Participants reported that the two Parisian hospitals in this study have each created an interprofessional process for withholding or withdrawing non-beneficial LSTs, providing insight into how norms of decision-making respond to systems-level legal changes. Participants reported that these processes tended to be consistent across several domains: maintaining unified messaging with patients, empowering nurses to participate in end-of-life decision-making, reducing moral distress provoked by end-of-life decisions, and shaping the ethical milieu within which end-of-life decision-making takes place. ConclusionsThe architecture of the interprofessional process created at two Parisian hospitals and its perceived benefits may be useful to clinicians and policy-makers attempting to establish processes, policies, or legislation directed at withholding or withdrawing potentially non-beneficial LSTs in the United States and elsewhere.

The relationship between life‐sustaining treatment limitation and organ donation in Swedish intensive care: A nationwide register study

Life-sustaining treatment limitation (LSTL) on the intensive care unit (ICU) may affect the rate of organ donation after brain death (DBD). The primary aim of this study was to examine whether there is a relationship between LSTL and DBD. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the rate of LSTL involved in ICU deaths and to describe technical and procedural characteristics of LSTL on Swedish ICUs. This was an observational cohort study on all ICU deaths (n=13156) in Sweden between 2014 and 2017. We analysed differences in DBD rates between deaths in ICU with and those without LSTL, using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. After excluding 1084 deaths on specialised ICUs and units not registering goals of treatment, the study population comprised 12072 deaths including 615 DBDs, of which 7865 had LSTL, 1706 had no LSTL and 2501 had no stated goals of treatment. The final cohort on which the relationship between DBD and LSTL was analysed comprised 9571 deaths including 419 DBDs. When no LSTL was documented, the rate of organ donation was 9.5% compared to 3.3% when LSTL was documented (P<.001). LSTL was associated with a lower DBD rate after adjusting for patient- and ICU-related factors (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31-0.53, P<.001). There was an inverse relationship between LSTL and DBD amongst patients who died on the ICU. This relationship remained after adjusting for factors known to influence organ donation. The reason remains to be determined.

Shifting trends in modes of death in the Intensive Care Unit.

To describe the way patients die in a Spanish ICU, and how the modes of death have changed in the last 10 years. Retrospective observational study evaluating all patients who died in a Spanish tertiary ICU over a 10-year period. Modes of death were classified as death despite maximal support (D-MS), brain death (BD), and death following life-sustaining treatment limitation (D-LSTL). Amongst 9264 ICU admissions, 1553 (16.8%) deaths were recorded. The ICU mortality rate declined (1.7%/year, 95% CI 1.4-2.0; p = 0.021) while ICU admissions increased (3.5%/year, 95% CI 3.3-3.7; p < 0.001). More than half of the patients (888, 57.2%) died D-MS, 389 (25.0%) died after a shared decision of D-LSTL and 276 (17.8%) died due to BD. Modes of death have changed significantly over the past decade. D-LSTL increased by 15.1%/year (95% CI 14.4-15.8; p < 0.001) and D-MS at the end-of-life decreased by 7.1%/year (95% CI 6.6-7.6; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients diagnosed with BD remained stable over time. End-of-life practices and modes of death in our ICU have steadily changed. The proportion of patients who died in ICU following limitation of life-prolonging therapies substantially increased, whereas death after maximal support occurred significantly less frequently.

Inter-physician variability in strategies linked to treatment limitations after severe traumatic brain injury; proactivity or wait-and-see

BackgroundPrognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient’s best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians’ strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase.MethodsInterviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians’ strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making.ResultsA divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital’s strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team—family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The “wait-and-see” physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase.ConclusionsDepending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.

Death in hospital following ICU discharge: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

BackgroundTo determine the frequency of, and factors associated with, death in hospital following ICU discharge to the ward.MethodsThe Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted across 459 ICUs from 50 countries globally. This study aimed to understand the frequency and factors associated with death in hospital in patients who survived their ICU stay. We examined outcomes in the subpopulation discharged with no limitations of life sustaining treatments (‘treatment limitations’), and the subpopulations with treatment limitations.Results2186 (94%) patients with no treatment limitations discharged from ICU survived, while 142 (6%) died in hospital. 118 (61%) of patients with treatment limitations survived while 77 (39%) patients died in hospital. Patients without treatment limitations that died in hospital after ICU discharge were older, more likely to have COPD, immunocompromise or chronic renal failure, less likely to have trauma as a risk factor for ARDS. Patients that died post ICU discharge were less likely to receive neuromuscular blockade, or to receive any adjunctive measure, and had a higher pre- ICU discharge non-pulmonary SOFA score. A similar pattern was seen in patients with treatment limitations that died in hospital following ICU discharge.ConclusionsA significant proportion of patients die in hospital following discharge from ICU, with higher mortality in patients with limitations of life-sustaining treatments in place. Non-survivors had higher systemic illness severity scores at ICU discharge than survivors.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073.

Survey of End-of-Life Care in Intensive Care Units in Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Studies on end-of-life care reveal different practices regarding withholding and/or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments between countries and regions. Available data about physicians' practices regarding end-of-life care in ICUs in Egypt is scarce. This study aimed to investigate physicians' attitudes toward end-of-life care and the reported practice in adult ICUs in Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. 100 physicians currently working in several ICU settings in Ain Shams University Hospitals were included. A self-administered questionnaire was used for collection of data. Most of the participants agreed to implementation of "do not resuscitate" (DNR) orders and applying pre-written DNR orders (61% and 65% consecutively), while only 13% almost always/often order DNR for terminally-ill patients. 52% of the participants agreed to usefulness of limiting life-sustaining therapy in some cases, but they expressed fear of legal consequences. 47% found withholding life-sustaining treatment is more ethical than its withdrawal. 16% almost always/often withheld further active treatment but continued current ones while only 6% almost always/often withdrew active therapy for terminally-ill patients. Theabsence of legislation and guidelines for end-of-life care in ICUs at Ain Shams University Hospitals was the main influential factor for the dissociation between participants' attitudes and their practices. Therefore, development of a consensus for end-of-life care in ICUs in Egypt is mandatory. Also, training of physicians in ICUs on effective communication with patients' families and surrogates is important for planning of limitation of life-sustaining treatments.

End-of-Life Issues in Intensive Care Units.

Critical care clinicians strive to reverse the disease process and are frequently faced with difficult end-of-life (EoL) situations, which include transitions from curative to palliative care, avoidance of disproportionate care, withholding or withdrawing therapy, responding to advance treatment directives, as well as requests for assistance in dying. This article presents a summary of the most common issues encountered by intensivists caring for patients around the end of their life. Topics explored are the practices around limitations of life-sustaining treatment, with specific mention to the thorny subject of assisted dying and euthanasia, as well as the difficulties encountered regarding the adoption of advance care directives in clinical practice and the importance of integrating palliative care in the everyday practice of critical-care physicians. The aim of this article is to enhance understanding around the complexity of EoL decisions, highlight the intricate cultural, religious, and social dimensions around death and dying, and identify areas of potential improvement for individual practice.

A Quality Improvement Project to Improve Documentation and Awareness of Limitations of Life-Sustaining Therapies.

Poor documentation and understanding of the limitations of life-sustaining therapies upon admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) can result in moral distress for both providers and families. Limitations of life-sustaining treatments are often not documented and/or understood by members of the health care team. We performed a quality improvement initiative to improve the care teams' understanding and paper documentation of the limitations of life-sustaining therapies in the PICU of a quaternary children's hospital from January 2018 to March 2019. We implemented a series of plan-do-study-act cycles, including initiation of an updated rounding tool that included limitations of interventions, in-person and electronic information sessions, and implementation of a visual bedside tool to remind providers when limitations were present. Pre- and postintervention surveys were administered. Nursing paper documentation of limitations of life-sustaining therapies increased sequentially from 0% to 88% during plan-do-study-act cycles. Creating a specific area to document limitations on the nursing sheet resulted in the most significant increase in documentation (36.6 points). Nurses reported that they "always" document limitations, which increased from 10% to 38%. The percentage of nurses who understood patients' intervention limitations increased from 28% to 33%. Limitations of life-sustaining therapies in the PICU are nuanced and involve multiple stakeholders. Nursing education and designation of a section of intervention limitations in nursing daily goal paper documentation can increase comfort with therapeutic limitations in the PICU. Future studies should explore impacts on patient care and serve as a framework for the ultimate goal of improving documentation of care limitations and code status in the electronic medical record.

How Do Children Die in PICUs Nowadays? A Multicenter Study From Spain.

To describe how children currently die in Spanish PICUs, their epidemiologic characteristics and clinical diagnoses. Prospective multicenter observational study. Eighteen PICUs participating in the MOdos de Morir en UCI Pediátrica-2 (MOMUCI-2) study in Spain. Children 1 to 16 years old who died in PICU during 2017 and 2018. None. During the 2-year study period, 250 deaths were recorded. Seventy-three children (29.3%) were younger than 1 year, 131 (52.6%) were between 1 and 12 years old, and 45 (18.1%) were older than 12. One-hundred eighty patients (72%) suffered from an underlying chronic disease, 54 (21.6%) had been admitted to PICU in the past 6 months, and 71 (28.4%) were severely disabled upon admission. Deaths occurred more frequently on the afternoon-night shift (62%) after a median PICU length of stay of 3 days (1-12 d). Nearly half of the patients died (48.8%) after life-sustaining treatment limitation, 71 died (28.4%) despite receiving life-sustaining therapies and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 57 (22.8%) were declared brain dead. The most frequent type of life-sustaining treatment limitation was the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation (20.8%), followed by noninitiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (18%) and withdrawal of vasoactive drugs (13.7%). Life-sustaining treatment limitation was significantly more frequent in patients with an underlying neurologic-neuromuscular disease, respiratory disease as the cause of admission, a previous admission to PICU in the past 6 months, and severe disability. Multivariate analyses indicated that life-sustaining treatment limitation, chronicity, and poor Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score were closely related. Currently, nearly half of the deaths in Spanish PICUs occur after the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. These children are more likely to have had previous admissions to the PICU, be severely disabled or to suffer from chronic diseases. Healthcare professionals who treat critically ill children ought to be aware of this situation and should therefore be prepared and trained to provide the best end-of-life care possible.

Limitation of life-sustaining treatment in NICU: Physicians' beliefs and attitudes in the Buenos Aires region

ObjectiveTo explore the ethical beliefs and attitudes of Argentinean neonatologists regarding limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) for very sick infants. MethodsWe used an anonymous questionnaire including direct questions and hypothetical clinical cases (inevitable demise and anticipated survival with severe long-term disability). Multivariable analysis was carried out to assess the relation between type of clinical case and physicians' LST attitudes. ResultsOverall, 315 neonatologists in 34 units in the Buenos Aires region participated (response rate 54%). Most responders would agree with decisions to start or continue LST. In both clinical cases, continuing current treatment with no therapeutic escalation was the only form of LST limitation acceptable to a substantial proportion (about 60%) of neonatologists. Agreement with LST limitation was slightly but significantly more likely when death was inevitable. ConclusionArgentinean neonatologists showed a conservative attitude regarding LST limitation. Patient prognosis and options of non-treatment decision significantly influenced their choices.

The contribution of frailty, cognition, activity of daily life and comorbidities on outcome in acutely admitted patients over 80years in European ICUs: the VIP2 study.

PurposePremorbid conditions affect prognosis of acutely-ill aged patients. Several lines of evidence suggest geriatric syndromes need to be assessed but little is known on their relative effect on the 30-day survival after ICU admission. The primary aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of frailty, cognition decline and activity of daily life in addition to the presence of comorbidity and polypharmacy and to assess their influence on 30-day survival.MethodsProspective cohort study with 242 ICUs from 22 countries. Patients 80 years or above acutely admitted over a six months period to an ICU between May 2018 and May 2019 were included. In addition to common patients’ characteristics and disease severity, we collected information on specific geriatric syndromes as potential predictive factors for 30-day survival, frailty (Clinical Frailty scale) with a CFS > 4 defining frail patients, cognitive impairment (informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE) with IQCODE ≥ 3.5 defining cognitive decline, and disability (measured the activity of daily life with the Katz index) with ADL ≤ 4 defining disability. A Principal Component Analysis to identify co-linearity between geriatric syndromes was performed and from this a multivariable model was built with all geriatric information or only one: CFS, IQCODE or ADL. Akaike’s information criterion across imputations was used to evaluate the goodness of fit of our models.ResultsWe included 3920 patients with a median age of 84 years (IQR: 81–87), 53.3% males). 80% received at least one organ support. The median ICU length of stay was 3.88 days (IQR: 1.83–8). The ICU and 30-day survival were 72.5% and 61.2% respectively. The geriatric conditions were median (IQR): CFS: 4 (3–6); IQCODE: 3.19 (3–3.69); ADL: 6 (4–6); Comorbidity and Polypharmacy score (CPS): 10 (7–14). CFS, ADL and IQCODE were closely correlated. The multivariable analysis identified predictors of 1-month mortality (HR; 95% CI): Age (per 1 year increase): 1.02 (1.–1.03, p = 0.01), ICU admission diagnosis, sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) (per point): 1.15 (1.14–1.17, p < 0.0001) and CFS (per point): 1.1 (1.05–1.15, p < 0.001). CFS remained an independent factor after inclusion of life-sustaining treatment limitation in the model.ConclusionWe confirm that frailty assessment using the CFS is able to predict short-term mortality in elderly patients admitted to ICU. Other geriatric syndromes do not add improvement to the prediction model. Since CFS is easy to measure, it should be routinely collected for all elderly ICU patients in particular in connection to advance care plans, and should be used in decision making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05853-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.