Respective impact of no escalation of treatment, withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment on ICU patients' prognosis: a multicenter study of the Outcomerea Research Group

被引:46
|
作者
Lautrette, Alexandre [1 ,2 ]
Garrouste-Orgeas, Maite [3 ]
Bertrand, Pierre-Marie [1 ]
Goldgran-Toledano, Dany [4 ]
Jamali, Samir [5 ]
Laurent, Virginie [6 ]
Argaud, Laurent [7 ]
Schwebel, Carole [8 ]
Mourvillier, Bruno [9 ]
Darmon, Michael [10 ]
Ruckly, Stephane [11 ]
Dumenil, Anne-Sylvie [12 ]
Lemiale, Virginie [13 ]
Souweine, Bertrand [1 ,2 ]
Timsit, Jean-Francois [9 ,11 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Clermont Ferrand, Gabriel Montpied Teaching Hosp, Med Intens Care Unit, F-63003 Clermont Ferrand 1, France
[2] Clermont Univ, LMGE, UMR CNRS 6023, Clermont Ferrand, France
[3] St Joseph Hosp, Crit Care Med Unit, Paris, France
[4] Gonesse Hosp, Crit Care Med Unit, Gonesse, France
[5] Dourdan Hosp, Crit Care Med Unit, Dourdan, France
[6] Versailles Hosp, Crit Care Med Unit, Le Chesnay, France
[7] Univ Lyon, Edouard Herriot Teaching Hosp, Med Intens Care Unit, Lyon, France
[8] Univ Hosp Grenoble, Albert Michallon Teaching Hosp, Med Intens Care Unit, Grenoble, France
[9] Bichat Claude Bernard Teaching Hosp, AP HP, Med Intens Care Unit, Paris, France
[10] Univ St Etienne, Nord Teaching Hosp, Med Intens Care Unit, Saint Etienne, France
[11] Albert Bonniot Inst, U823 Outcome Canc & Criticalillness, F-38076 La Tronche, France
[12] Antoine Beclere Univ Hosp, Surg Intens Care Unit, Clamart, France
[13] St Louis Teaching Hosp, AP HP, Med Intens Care Unit, Paris, France
关键词
INTENSIVE-CARE UNITS; ROUTINE STRATEGY; DECISION-MAKING; END; SUPPORT; SCORE;
D O I
10.1007/s00134-015-3944-5
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
To assess the prevalence of decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (DFLST), the patients characteristics, and to estimate the impact of DFLST stages on mortality. Observational study of a prospective database between 2005 and 2012 from 13 ICUs. DFLST were defined as follows: no escalation of treatment (stage 1), not to start or escalate treatment even if such treatment is considered in the future; withholding (stage 2), not to start or escalate necessary treatment; withdrawal (stage 3), to stop necessary treatment. The impact of daily DFLST stage on day-30 hospital mortality was tested with a discrete-time Cox's model and adjusted for admission severity and daily SOFA score. Of 10,080 patients, 1290 (13 %) made DFLST. The highest DFLST stage during the ICU stay was no escalation of treatment in 339 (26 %) patients, withholding in 502 (39 %) patients, and withdrawal in 449 (35 %) patients. Older patients, patients with at least one chronic disease, and patients with greater ICU severity were significantly more numerous in the DFLST group. Day-30 mortality was 13 % for non-DFLST patients, 35 % for no escalation of treatment, 75 % for withholding, 93 % for withdrawal. After adjustment, an increase in day-30 mortality was associated with withholding and withdrawal (hazard ratio 95 % CI 5.93 [4.95-7.12] and 20.05 [15.58-25.79], P < 0.0001), but not with no escalation of treatment (HR 1.14 [0.91-1.44], P = 0.25). DFLST were made in 13 % of ICU patients. Withholding, withdrawal, older age, more comorbidities, and higher severity of illness were associated with higher mortality. No escalation of treatment was not associated with increased mortality.
引用
收藏
页码:1763 / 1772
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Respective impact of no escalation of treatment, withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment on ICU patients’ prognosis: a multicenter study of the Outcomerea Research Group
    Alexandre Lautrette
    Maïté Garrouste-Orgeas
    Pierre-Marie Bertrand
    Dany Goldgran-Toledano
    Samir Jamali
    Virginie Laurent
    Laurent Argaud
    Carole Schwebel
    Bruno Mourvillier
    Michaël Darmon
    Stéphane Ruckly
    Anne-Sylvie Dumenil
    Virginie Lemiale
    Bertrand Souweine
    Jean-François Timsit
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2015, 41 : 1763 - 1772
  • [2] The impact of withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment issues on patients with sepsis: a prospective, nationwide, multicenter cohort study
    So-yun Kim
    Da Hyun Kang
    Hyekyeong Ju
    Dong Kyu Oh
    Su Yeon Lee
    Mi Hyeon Park
    Chae-Man Lim
    Song I Lee
    Scientific Reports, 15 (1)
  • [3] NURSES' EXPERIENCE OF WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT IN ICU
    Harvey, Hannah
    NURSING IN CRITICAL CARE, 2022, 27 : 25 - 25
  • [4] DEFINING "NO ESCALATION OF TREATMENT" ORDERS AND CURRENT PRACTICES IN WITHHOLDING LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT IN HOSPITALIZED ADULT PATIENTS
    Danley, Shiloh
    Amity, Marjorie
    Cartin-Ceba, Rodrigo
    CHEST, 2024, 166 (04) : 2045A - 2045A
  • [5] Limiting therapeutic effort: is withholding or withdrawal life-sustaining treatment the same?
    Gamboa Antinolo, Fernando
    MEDICINA CLINICA, 2010, 135 (09): : 410 - 416
  • [6] Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in ALS patients: a Multicenter Italian Survey
    Moglia, C.
    Palumbo, F.
    Veronese, S.
    Calvo, A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 2022, 29 : 759 - 759
  • [7] Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment A Case Study
    Stacy, Kathleen M.
    CRITICAL CARE NURSE, 2012, 32 (03) : 14 - 23
  • [8] Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a Lebanese intensive care unit: a prospective observational study
    Alexandre Yazigi
    Moussa Riachi
    Georges Dabbar
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2005, 31 : 562 - 567
  • [9] ICU Physician-Based Determinants of Life-Sustaining Therapy During Nights and Weekends: French Multicenter Study From the Outcomerea Research Group
    Garrouste-Orgeas, Maite
    Ben-Rehouma, Mouna
    Darmon, Michael
    Ruckly, Stephane
    Clec'h, Christophe
    Adrie, Christophe
    Tabah, Alexis
    Vesin, Aurelien
    Schwebel, Carole
    Misset, Benoit
    Timsit, Jean-Francois
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (11) : 2393 - 2400
  • [10] Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a Lebanese intensive care unit: a prospective observational study
    Yazigi, A
    Riachi, M
    Dabbar, G
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2005, 31 (04) : 562 - 567