Limitation Of Life Support Research Articles

Prognostication during physician-family discussions about limiting life support in intensive care units*

Prognostic information is important to the family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients, yet little is known about what prognostic information physicians provide. Our objectives were to determine the types of prognostic information provided to families of critically ill patients when making major end-of-life treatment decisions and to identify factors associated with more physician prognostication. Multiple-center, cross-sectional study. ICUs of four hospitals. Thirty-five physicians, 51 patients, and 169 family members. We audiotaped 51 physician-family conferences in which there were deliberations about major end-of-life treatment decisions at four hospitals in 2000-2002. Conferences were coded to identify the types of prognostic information provided by physicians. We used a mixed-effects regression model to identify factors associated with more prognostication by physicians. The mean number of prognostic statements per conference was 9.4+/-6.4 (range 0-29). Eighty-six percent of conferences contained discussion of the patient's anticipated functional status or quality of life, compared with 63% in which the chances for survival were discussed (p=.01). There were significantly more statements about prognosis for functional outcomes per conference compared with statements about prognosis for survival (median 4 [interquartile range 2-8] vs. 1 [interquartile range 0-3]; p<.001). Increasing educational level of the family was independently associated with more prognostic statements by physicians (p<.001) as was the degree of physician-family conflict about withdrawing life support (p<.001) and the physician's race being white (p=.009). Prognostication occurred frequently during physician-family deliberations about whether to forego life support, but physicians did not discuss the patient's prognosis for survival in more than one third of conferences. Less educated families received less information about prognosis. Future studies should address whether these observations partially explain the high prevalence of family misunderstandings about prognosis in intensive care units.

Medical practices during the last 48 hours of life in children admitted to seven Brazilian Pediatric intensive care units

During the last decades life support limitation (LSL) practices have been offered more frequently in Latin American pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). We hypothesize that, depending on the Brazilian region, the incidence of LSL and the medical management may differ.

Ethics review: 'Living wills' and intensive care – an overview of the American experience

Withdrawal and limitation of life support in the intensive care unit is common, although how this decision is reached can be varied and arbitrary. Inevitably, the patient is unable to participate in this discussion because their capacity is limited by the nature of the illness and the effects of its treatment. Physicians often discuss these decisions with relatives in an attempt to respect the patient's wishes despite evidence suggesting that the relatives may not correctly reflect the patient's desires. Advance decisions, commonly known as 'living wills', have been proposed as a way of facilitating the maintenance of an individual's autonomy when they become incapacitated. Others have argued that legalising advance decisions is euthanasia by the back door. In October 2007 in England and Wales, advance decisions will become legally binding as part of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act. This has been the case in the USA for many years. The purpose of the present review is to examine the published literature regarding the effect of advance decisions in relation to the provision of adult critical care.

Life-support limitation in the pre-hospital setting

Life-support limitation in the pre-hospital setting

Brief review: Practice variation in end of life care in the ICU: implications for patients with severe brain injury

To review end of life care issues in the intensive care unit (ICU) and how practice variation might affect the ultimate outcome of acute brain injury. Bibliographic literature search and personal files. In Canada, 10-20% of critically ill adults die in the ICU. Many of these deaths follow acute brain injury in the setting of clinical deterioration, life support limitation and brain death. This brief review addresses some key elements of end of life care for critically ill brain injured patients, including family interactions, making survival predictions, and factors influencing decision-making about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Provision of compassionate high quality end of life care should be standard of practice for brain injured and all other critically ill patients who cannot survive. Inconsistencies in end of life care may affect where, when and how patients die, the quality of their death and whether or not they are considered for organ and tissue donation.

Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for critically ill patients who lack both decision-making capacity and surrogate decision-makers*

Many intensive care unit (ICU) physicians have withdrawn life-support from a patient who lacked decision-making capacity and a surrogate decision-maker, yet little is known about the decision-making practices for these patients. We sought to determine how often such patients are admitted to the ICU of a metropolitan hospital and how end-of-life decisions are made for them. Prospective, observational cohort study. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the medical ICU of a metropolitan West Coast hospital during a 7-month period in 2003 to 2004. Attending physicians completed a questionnaire about the decision-making process for each patient for whom they considered limiting life-support who lacked decisional capacity and a legally recognized surrogate decision-maker. Of the 303 patients admitted during the study period, 49 (16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12-21%) lacked decision-making capacity and a surrogate during the entire ICU stay. Compared with all other ICU patients, these patients were more likely to be male (88% vs. 69%; p = .002), white (42% vs. 23%; p = .028), and > or =65 yrs old (29% vs. 13%; p = .007). Physicians considered withholding or withdrawing treatment from 37% (18) of the 49 patients who lacked both decision-making capacity and a surrogate decision-maker. For 56% (10) of these 18 patients, the opinion of another attending physician was obtained; for 33% (6 of 18), the ICU team made the decision independently, and for 11% (2 of 18), the input of the courts or the hospital ethics committee was obtained. Overall, 27% of deaths (13 of 49) during the study period were in incapacitated patients who lacked a surrogate (95% CI, 15-41%). Sixteen percent of patients admitted to the medical ICU of this hospital lacked both decision-making capacity and a surrogate decision-maker. Decisions to limit life support were generally made by physicians without judicial or institutional review. Further research and debate are needed to develop optimal decision-making strategies for these difficult cases.

Optimizing neurologic prognosis after cardiac arrest

Neurologic disability is a feared outcome of resuscitation from cardiac arrest. The study by Rech and colleagues in the previous issue of Critical Care describes the use of neuron-specific enolase to inform an early prognosis in patients who survived in-hospital cardiac arrest. In their study 'none of the patients had a DNR order and there was no limitation of life support.' As a result, 10% of patients remained in a vegetative state at 6 months, a higher percentage than in other recent studies. The existence of a population of patients in which all are fully supported without withholding care or withdrawal of care may represent an important research opportunity. High neuron-specific enolase levels have been reported in patients that awoke and seem to occur in studies with a higher percentage of patients in a vegetative state at follow-up (more uniform support). If a comprehensive set of clinical, electrophysiological, biochemical and imaging measures could be obtained in a uniform manner in a cohort of patients without limitations in care, a more objective set of comprehensive prognostic indicators could be obtained. A focused international consortium is called for.

What influences parents??? decisions to limit or withdraw life support?*

Decisions to forgo life support from critically ill children are commonly faced by parents and physicians. Previous research regarding parents' perspectives on the decision-making process has been limited by retrospective methods and the use of closed-ended questionnaires. We prospectively identified and described parents' self-reported influences on decisions to forgo life support from their children. Deeper understanding of parents' views will allow physicians to focus end-of-life discussions on factors important to parents and help resolve conflicts. Prospective, qualitative pilot study. Pediatric intensive care unit of a university-affiliated children's hospital. A total of 14 parents of ten children whose pediatric intensive care unit physician had made a recommendation to limit or withdraw life support. : In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with parents during their decision-making process. Factors influencing the parents in this study in their decision to forgo life support included their previous experience with death and end-of-life decision making for others, their personal observations of their child's suffering, their perceptions of their child's will to survive, their need to protect and advocate for their child, and the family's financial resources and concerns regarding life-long care. Parents in this study expressed the desire to do what is best for their child but struggled with feelings of selfishness, guilt, and the need to avoid agony and sorrow. Physician recommendations, review of options, and joint formulation of a plan helped parents gain a sense of control over their situation. Parents of eight children agreed to forgo life support and parents of two did not. Prospective interviews with open-ended questions identified factors influencing parents' decision making not previously described in the critical care literature such as parents' past experiences with end-of-life decisions and their anticipated emotional adjustments and future resources. Inclusion of these factors into discussions is important to parents and may facilitate decisions regarding the limitation or withdrawal of life support.

Multicenter study of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in intensive care units: the usefulness of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in decision making

This study examined the incidence and mortality of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) in intensive care units, evaluated the limitation of life support in these patients, and determined whether daily measurement of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) is useful for decision making. Prospective, observational study in 79 intensive care units. Of the 7,615 patients admitted during a 2-month period we found 1,340 patients to have MODS. We recorded mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital and the maximum and minimum total SOFA scores during MODS. Limitation of life support in MODS patients was also evaluated. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine the factors predicting mortality. The in-hospital mortality rate in patients with MODS was 44.6%, and some type of limitation of life support was applied in 70.6% of the patients who died. The predictive model maximizing specificity included the following variables: maximum SOFA score, minimum SOFA score, trend of the SOFA for 5 consecutive days, and age over 60 years. The model diagnostic yield was: specificity 100%, sensitivity 7.2%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 57.3%; the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.807. This model showed that in our population with MODS those older than 60 years and with SOFA score higher than 9 for at least 5 days were unlikely to survive.

Limitação de suporte de vida em três unidades de terapia intensiva pediátrica do sul do Brasil

To describe causes of death and factors involved in the decision-making process related to life support limitation at three university-affiliated pediatric intensive care units in the south of Brazil. A retrospective study was conducted, based on a review of the medical records of all deaths occurring during 2002 at three pediatric intensive care units in Porto Alegre. Three previously trained pediatric fellows from each service performed the study. Data were assessed relating to general case characteristics, causes of death (failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, brain death, do-not-resuscitate orders, withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment -- the last three modes were classified as the life support limitation group), length of stay in hospital, end-of-life plans and the participation of patients families and Ethics Committees. The Student t test, Mann Whitney, chi-square, odds ratio and multivariate analyses were used for comparisons. Close to 53.3% of fatal cases had received full cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The incidence of life support limitation was 36%, with statistical differences (p = 0.014) between the three hospitals (25 versus 54.3 and 45.5%, respectively). The most frequent form of life support limitation was a do-not-resuscitate order (70%). Life support limitation was associated with the presence of chronic disease (odds ratio = 8.2; 95%CI 3.2-21.3) and length stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (odds ratio = 4.4; 95%CI 1.6-11.8). The rate of involvement of families and Ethics Committees in the decision-making process was lesser than 10%. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is offered more frequently than is observed in northern countries. In contrast, life support limitation is offered through do-not-resuscitate orders. These findings and the low participation of the families in the decision-making process reflect the difficulties to be overcome by those professionals who are responsible for handling critically ill children in southern Brazil.

Life support limitation at three pediatric intensive care units in southern Brazil

Life support limitation at three pediatric intensive care units in southern Brazil

Life support limitation at three pediatric intensive care units in southern Brazil

Life support limitation at three pediatric intensive care units in southern Brazil

Legal issues relating to the limitation of life support - A review of the international legal position

The Law Commission of India has recently taken up the study of legal issues relating to 'limiting life support' in patients in Intensive care units. Physicians, particularly, those dealing with critical care, feel that a debate on these issues is necessary towards the creation of appropriate legal provisions. This article summarises the existing international legal position.

The constitutional and legal provisions in Indian law for limiting life support

The absence of guidelines for withdrawal and withholding of life support in Indian law is perceived to be the most important obstacle to the practice of appropriate end of life care. In addition, physicians appear to be apprehensive about their civil or criminal liability when called upon to make decisions to limit life-supporting therapies. The following account explores the existing Constitutional and legal provisions that can reasonably be used by physicians in their defence. The article provides illustrative case histories that bring to focus the ethical dilemmas commonly faced by the physician .It also spells out the need for new legislation specifically addressing end-of-life issues.

DNR directives are established early in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients

Setting treatment goals in the intensive care unit (ICU) often involves resuscitation decisions. Our objective was to study the rate of establishing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives, determinants, and outcomes of those directives for mechanically ventilated patients. In a multicentre observational study, we included consecutive adults with no DNR directives within 24 hr of ICU admission who were mechanically ventilated for at least 48 hr. We identified the rate with which DNR directives were established, and factors associated with these directives. Among 765 patients, DNR directives were established for 231 (30.2%) patients; 143 (62.1%) of these were established within the first week. Factors independently associated with a DNR directive were: patient age [> or = 75 yr (hazard ratio [HR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.5-3.4], 65 to 74 yr (HR 1.8, 1.2-2.7), 50 to 64 yr (HR 1.4, 1.0-2.2) relative to < 50 yr); medical rather than surgical diagnosis (HR 1.8, 1.3-2.5); multiple organ dysfunction score (HR 1.7 for each five-point increment, 1.4-2.0); physician prediction of ICU survival [< 10% (HR 15.0, 6.7-33.6)], 10 to 40% [(HR 5.0, 2.3-11.2), 41 to 60% (HR 4.0, 1.8-9.0) relative to > 90%]; and physician perception of patient preference to limit life support (no advanced life support [(HR 5.8, 3.6-9.4) or partial advanced life support (HR 3.2, 2.2-4.6) compared to full measures]. One third of mechanically ventilated patients had DNR directives established early during their ICU stay after the first 24 hr of admission. The strongest predictors of DNR directives were physician prediction of low probability of survival, physician perception of patient preference to limit life support, organ dysfunction, medical diagnosis and age.

Clinician predictions of intensive care unit mortality.

Predicting outcomes for critically ill patients is an important aspect of discussions with families in the intensive care unit. Our objective was to evaluate clinical intensive care unit survival predictions and their consequences for mechanically ventilated patients. Prospective cohort study. Fifteen tertiary care centers. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients > or = 18 yrs of age with expected intensive care unit stay > or = 72 hrs. We recorded baseline characteristics at intensive care unit admission. Daily we measured multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS), use of advanced life support, patient preferences for life support, and intensivist and bedside intensive care unit nurse estimated probability of intensive care unit survival. The 851 patients were aged 61.2 (+/- 17.6, mean + SD) yrs with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 21.7 (+/- 8.6). Three hundred and four patients (35.7%) died in the intensive care unit, and 341 (40.1%) were assessed by a physician at least once to have a < 10% intensive care unit survival probability. Independent predictors of intensive care unit mortality were baseline APACHE II score (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.24, for a 5-point increase) and daily factors such as MODS (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-3.04, for a 5-point increase), use of inotropes or vasopressors (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.77), dialysis (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), patient preference to limit life support (hazard ratio, 10.22; 95% confidence interval, 7.38-14.16), and physician but not nurse prediction of < 10% survival. The impact of physician estimates of < 10% intensive care unit survival was greater for patients without vs. those with preferences to limit life support (p < .001) and for patients with less vs. more severe organ dysfunction (p < .001). Mechanical ventilation, inotropes or vasopressors, and dialysis were withdrawn more often when physicians predicted < 10% probability of intensive care unit survival (all ps < .001). Physician estimates of intensive care unit survival < 10% are associated with subsequent life support limitation and more powerfully predict intensive care unit mortality than illness severity, evolving or resolving organ dysfunction, and use of inotropes or vasopressors.

Limitation of life support: frequency and practice in a Hong Kong intensive care unit.

To examine the frequency and the decision-making processes involved in limiting (withdrawing and withholding) life support therapy in critically ill Chinese patients in the intensive care unit. Prospective survey of patients who had life support limited between April 1997 and March 1999. Medical and surgical intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. All patients admitted to the intensive care unit of the Prince of Wales Hospital who subsequently died and/or had life support limited. Brain-dead patients were excluded from analysis. None. Of 490 patients who died in the intensive care unit, limitation of life support occurred in 288 (58.8%). Relatives or patients requested limitation of life support in 32 cases (11%). The family and/or patient concurred with limitation of life support in 273 occasions (95%). Therapy was withheld in 30.8% and withdrawn in 28.0% of deaths. Therapy limited included inotropes, additional oxygen, and renal replacement therapy. Limitation of therapy in dying Chinese patients occurs frequently in intensive care patients, and both patients and relatives concur with medical decisions to limit therapy in these patients. Withholding therapy rather than withdrawing therapy occurs more frequently than in Western populations.

Dying in the intensive care unit: collaborative multicenter study about forgoing life-sustaining treatment in Argentine pediatric intensive care units.

Describe modes of death and factors involved in decision-making together with life support limitation (LSL) procedures. Prospective, descriptive, longitudinal, and noninterventional study. Sixteen pediatric intensive care units in Argentina. Every patient who died during a 1-yr period was included. Age, sex, length of stay (LOS), primary and admission diagnosis, underlying chronic disease (CD), postoperative condition (PO). Deaths were classified in four groups: a) failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); b) do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; c) withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WH/WD); and d) brain death (BD). Justifications were classified as a) imminent death; b) poor long-term prognosis; c) poor quality of life; and d) family request. Data were collected from medical records and interviews with the attending physicians. Descriptive statistics were performed. Differences among groups were analyzed through contingency tables and analysis of variance when required. Relative risks and confidence intervals of variables potentially related to LSL were analyzed, and logistic regression was performed. There were 6358 admissions and 457 deaths. CPR was performed in 52%, DNR in 16%, WH/WD in 20%, and BD in 11% of dead patients. BD patients were older, LOS and CD prevalence were higher in the WH/WD group. Inotropic drugs were the most frequently limited treatment in 110 patients (55%), CPR in 72 (35.6%), and mechanical ventilation in 63 (31%). Imminent death was the most frequently reported justification for LSL. CD and more staff were associated with a higher probability of LSL. Most of the patients in Argentina underwent CPR before their death. We have a high proportion of patients with CD (65%) and low BD diagnosis. PO condition decreased LSL probability in chronically ill patients. Do-not-resuscitate orders and withholding new treatments were the most common LSL. Active withdrawal was exceptional. The Ethics Committee was consulted in 5% of the LSL population.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

To the Editors:Patricia Benner’s article, “Death as a Human Passage: Compassionate Care for Persons Dying in Critical Care Units” (September 2001:355–359) brought back memories of an era we forget at our peril. She correctly writes, “Death with dignity has become a loaded term meaning many things to many people,” including “the absence of unnecessary heroic measures” for a dying patient for some and “not prolonging life that is deteriorating in its quality and continuity” for others. Her thoughts reminded me of the death of former President Harry S. Truman. Truman had earned a reputation as a politician who would not back down from fighting for what he truly believed in (thus the nickname “Give ‘em hell Harry”). He fell ill in December 1972, clinging to life for several weeks while a nation watched his battle with what became multisystem organ failure.1 A comment I heard following his death was most appropriate: He died as he lived: fighting.One might guess that Truman viewed death as “the enemy,” which Benner suggests is a legitimate view, but I would go one step further and suggest that his death was another form of death with dignity. No matter how much experience we have that tells us that a certain critically ill patient is likely to die, critical care nurses show compassion, in part, by honoring and respecting the decision of the patient who wishes to die with dignity as he or she sees it, whether that means limiting life support or treating death as an enemy to be fought by all available means.

Withdrawing and withholding life support in the intensive care unit: a Spanish prospective multi-centre observational study.

To determine how frequently life support is withheld or withdrawn from adult critically ill patients, and how physicians and patients families agree on the decision regarding the limitation of life support. Prospective multi-centre cohort study. Six adult medical-surgical Spanish intensive care units (ICUs). Three thousand four hundred ninety-eight consecutive patients admitted to six ICUs were enrolled. Data collected included age, sex, SAPS II score on admission and within 24 h of the decision to limit treatment, length of ICU stay, outcome at ICU discharge, cause and mode of death, time to death after the decision to withhold or withdraw life support, consultation and agreement with patient's family regarding withholding or withdrawal, and the modalities of therapies withdrawn or withheld. Two hundred twenty-six (6.6%) of 3,498 patients had therapy withheld or withdrawn and 221 of them died in the ICU. Age, SAPS II and length of ICU stay were significantly higher in patients dying patients who had therapy withheld or withdrawn than in patients dying despite active treatment. The proposal to withhold or withdraw life support was initiated by physicians in 210 (92.9%) of 226 patients and by the family in the remaining cases. The patient's family was not involved in the decision to withhold or withdraw life support therapy in 64 (28.3%) of 226 cases. Only 21 (9%) patients had expressed their wish to decline life-prolonging therapy prior to ICU admission. The withholding and withdrawing of treatment was frequent in critically ill patients and was initiated primarily by physicians.