#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Patients with limitation or withdrawal of life supporting care admitted in a medico-surgical intermediate care unit: Prevalence, description and outcome over a six-month period


Authors: Perrine Molmy aff001;  Nicolas Vangrunderbeeck aff001;  Olivier Nigeon aff001;  Malcolm Lemyze aff002;  Didier Thevenin aff002;  Jihad Mallat aff001
Authors place of work: Intermediate Care Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Lens, Lens, France aff001;  Intensive Care Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Lens, Lens, France aff002;  Respiratory & Infectious Diseases Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Lens, Lens, France aff003;  Department of Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE aff004
Published in the journal: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Category: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225303

Summary

Purpose

There have been few studies on the limitation of Life Supporting Care (LSC) and Withdrawal of LSC in Intermediate Care Units (IMCUs). We report the prevalence of LSC limited patients in a medico-surgical IMCU over a six-month period, examining the description, outcomes, and patterns of LSC Limitations and Withdrawal of LSC.

Methods

Single center, retrospective observational study in an IMCU of a 500-bed general hospital.

Results

Our study of 404 patients, reported 79 (19.5%, 95%CI: [16.0–23.7]%) being admitted with LSC limitations in the IMCU. This group of LSC limited patients presented with higher chronic and acute severity scores. The most common admission diagnosis of LSC limited patients was acute respiratory failure (51%). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) was frequently used within this population (39%). Hospital mortality for LSC limited patients was high (53%) and associated with age (OR = 1.07, 95%CI: [1.01–1.13)]), SOFA score (OR 1.29, 95%CI: [1.01–1.64]), and hypoxemic respiratory failure (OR 7.2, 95%CI: [1.27–40.9]). Withdrawal of LSC occurred in 19.5% of cases, often accompanied with terminal sedation with or without NIV removal (43.8%).

Conclusions

Patients with limitation of LSC are frequently admitted into IMCU. Hospital mortality rate was high and associated with age, acute organ failures, and hypoxemic respiratory failure. Life support withdrawal includes palliative sedation with or without NIV discontinuation.

Keywords:

Death rates – Critical care and emergency medicine – Hospitals – Physicians – Diagnostic medicine – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Intensive care units – Respiratory failure

Introduction

Intermediate Care Units (IMCUs) were implemented in the “90s to provide a graded option between regular ward care and intensive care by providing more frequent monitoring and treatment than is possible on a general ward [1]. The IMCU concept was implemented as a hospital strategy to provide flexibility in patient triage. Though different in their design, one of the objectives of IMCUs is to decompress ICUs, so those resources are appropriately applied to patients who really need them [1, 2]. However, the value of IMCUs has been questioned [3].

The role of IMCUs is far less known than that for ICUs [4]. In our hospital, we believe that IMCUs have an important role in the management of patients who have been placed on limitations of care and withholding or withdrawal of life-supporting care (LSC). However, little is known about the prevalence of such patients in the IMCU settings [57]. We, therefore, sought to characterize the prevalence of patients with LSC in our IMCU population, as well as the severity of illness, comorbidities, transitions to the withdrawal of support, and in-hospital mortality.

The first objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of patients with limitation of LSC treated in the IMCU during the study period, and the factors associated with these limitations. Secondly, we sought to identify the independent risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with LSC limitation. Third, the causes and modalities of the withdrawal of LSC are also studied.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study was approved and authorized by the Lens General Hospital Ethics Committee. This study is purely observational and all data were treated anonymously before analyzing, according to the Ethics’ Committee conditions. Consent to participate was not applicable. No funding was received for this study.

Study design

Single center retrospective study.

Source of population

All patients admitted into the IMCU of Lens General Hospital between January 1st and June 30th 2012 were included. The Lens general hospital IMCU is a separate 12-bed unit, distinct from the ICU. The medical team in charge of patients includes Anesthesiologists, and Emergency physicians. The structure of medical staffing is detailed in S1 Table. The nurse: Patient ratio is 1:3. There is no Intensive Care physician dedicated specifically to the IMCU. The intensivists are responsible for determining a patient’s admission or refusal. The Lens general hospital is an acute general hospital with 500 beds that serves a population of 400,000 composed of people living in both rural and urban areas in the North of France. The hospital has an 8-bed Coronary Unit with its own reception. In addition, the Emergency Department possesses a 12-bed unit for short stays to accommodate and monitor the health of less severe patients.

Data sources

Medical files of all patients admitted into the IMCU were retrieved from the hospital records. Clinical data including medical history and clinical presentation at entry which were extracted from these documents. Laboratory data was recuperated from the hospital electronic database, except in the case of blood gas analysis data which is reported in the daily patient’s care record.

Definitions and procedures for limitation and withdrawal of life supporting care

Limitation of LSC was defined as a decision to not start or increase a life-sustaining treatment. Written "do not Intubate" orders, decisions to not begin vasopressor support, extra-renal replacement therapy or surgery were the conditions of limitation of LSC. Withdrawal of LSC was defined as a decision to actively stop an intervention that was necessary to keep a patient alive through artificial organ supply, including vasopressor support, oxygen-therapy, mechanical/invasive or NIV, and blood transfusions. Limitations of life-supporting care in our hospital includes two components. For patients requiring urgent invasive life-support care at the ED or before hospital admission, the common strategy is an “ICU trial” of few days of intensive care with mandatory reevaluation. Patients admitted directly to the IMCU have limitations of life, and supporting care already anticipated, with limited time to review previous assessment of patients’ characteristics and collegial decisions [8]. For most IMCU patients, these limitations include no use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors or extra-renal replacement, with NIV being the exception. The process of IMCU admission and limitations of life support are exposed and detailed in Fig 1.

Process of admission (from Emergency Department or Ward), and life-support care limitations if considered.
Fig. 1. Process of admission (from Emergency Department or Ward), and life-support care limitations if considered.
ICU, Intensive Care Unit; IMCU, Intermediate Care Unit.

All the limitation and withdrawal of LSC orders were decided through a collegial decision of at least two senior physicians (intensivists, ED physicians, or other specialists or general practitioners) being involved. The decision-making process followed the guidelines of the French Intensive Care Society [9], including patient advance directives when available, even if this is uncommon in France [8]. Other factors involved in the process include multidisciplinary agreement, relatives’ information, and traceability on the medical chart. The document used to follow the LSC limitation or withdrawal process is reported in S1 Text.

Withdrawals of LSC were decided through multidisciplinary agreement, a search of patients’ advance directives or refusal to sustain LSC measures, and relatives ‘information and consent. The decision process includes discussions with attending nurses’ team and family, providing information on the procedures for withdrawal of LSC, including cessation of supportive care and/or sedative treatments according to the French law and guidelines [8]: hospitalization in the IMCU is discussed primarily when an ED or a ward physician proposes a patient to the ICU team for admission. A multidisciplinary consultation is held and includes, when possible, patients’ information and agreement. Goals of care and means are exposed to the nurses’ team to confirm the right course of action. When limitation of life-supporting care is considered, patients and/or their family are informed of the options and possible expectations regarding anticipated outcomes. Before admission, these decisions are written on the patient’s medical file. In the IMCU, the decisions of limitations or withdrawal are compiled in a special section of the medical file (S1 Text).

Limitation and withdrawal of LSC is considered to have commenced once a senior physician transcribed the first notification in the medical file, whether this decision was made in the ED or the ward before admission to the IMCU, or during the IMCU stay.

Data collection

The following data were recorded from all patients’ files: age, gender, admission category (medical, scheduled or unscheduled surgery), primary symptom or diagnosis at IMCU admission, unit of origin (Emergency Department, ICU, ward or exterior unit). Underlying conditions and autonomy (chronic diseases, malignant tumor, neoplasia with metastasis) were reported and were appreciated through Charlson comorbidity score [10,11] and Knaus index [12,13] (S2 Table). Severity at admission was assessed on the first IMCU day through calculation of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. SAPS II score without age was also recorded to estimate the severity without the influence of age. Comorbidities were defined as the existence of more than one chronic organ failure (chronic respiratory or renal insufficiencies, liver cirrhosis, and congestive heart failure) or as the association of a chronic organ failure with neoplastic disease, malnutrition or dementia.

The primary limitation of LSC treatment in the IMCU (NIV, vasopressor support, blood transfusions), the length of stay in the IMCU and the hospital were recorded. Mortality was registered in the IMCU and during the hospital stay.

Statistical analysis

Data are expressed as mean ± SD when they are normally distributed, or as median [25–75%, interquartile range, (IQR)] when they are non-normally distributed. The normality of data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and visually by histogram. Comparisons of values between different groups of patients were performed by two-tailed Student’s t test, or Mann–Whitney U-test, as appropriate. Analysis of categorical data was performed using the χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests. Multivariable logistic regression (entry p<0.25) [14] was used to identify significant independent predictors that were associated with the limitations of LSC, and with the hospital mortality in the LSC limited patients group. Goodness-of-fit of the model was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. The potential problem of co-linearity was evaluated before running the analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows release 17.0 software (Chicago, Illinois, USA). p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All reported P values are 2-sided.

Results

Study population

A total of 404 consecutive admitted patients were studied. Global population patients’ characteristics are presented in Table 1. Limitation of LSC was registered for 19.5% (95%CI: [16.0–23.7]%) of patients; it was determined before or at IMCU admission for 70% of these patients, and during the stay for 30%. Withdrawal of LSC was subsequently decided for 20% of patients with LSC limitation.

Tab. 1. General characteristics of IMCU patients (n = 404).
General characteristics of IMCU patients (n = 404).

Characteristics of patients

The comparisons between LSC limited and LSC unlimited patients are presented in Table 2. Patients with Limitations of LSC were globally older, presented with more severe chronic illness and higher severity at admission than LSC unlimited patients. The Knaus index was also higher in LSC limited patients compared to patients without LSC limitations (4 [3–4] vs. 3 [2–3], p<0.001; respectively), reflecting greater weakness and dependence. The Admission category was mostly medical in LSC limited patients, with acute respiratory failure as the principal diagnosis. NIV was the most frequent LSC treatment. Other LSC invasive supports were anecdotical (data not shown).

Tab. 2. Comparison of patients with or without LSC limitation: Univariate analysis.
Comparison of patients with or without LSC limitation: Univariate analysis.

In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the limited LSC patients compared to patients without LSC limitations (53% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). Also, the median length of stay in IMCU and the IMCU mortality were both significantly higher in the limited LSC patients’ group (Table 2).

Factors associated with limitation of LSC orders

In the univariate analysis, 11 variables were associated with LSC limitation with p<0.25 for entry into multivariate models (Table 2). Multivariable logistic regression analysis with LSC limitation as the dependent variable was then performed. For reason of co-linearity between SAPS II score and SAPS II without age score, and because medical diagnosis and acute respiratory failure types were not independent, nine variables were finally included in the model (age, SAPS II without age score, SOFA score, Charlson score, Knaus score, hypoxemic and hypercapnic acute respiratory failures, scheduled post-surgery admission, and urgent post-surgery admission). Among these variables, high SOFA score, a high degree of comorbidities (Charlson score) and low autonomy were significantly associated with LSC limitation (Table 3). Surgical patients admitted into IMCU were less likely to have LSC limitation, whereas hypercapnic acute respiratory failure type was strongly associated with limitation of LSC. Limitation of LSC was decided before or early after IMCU admission. The median delay of LSC limitations decisions was less than 1 day (0–1). Alleged reasons for LSC limitations decisions were mainly advanced age (4.5%), limited autonomy (50.6%), comorbidities (88.6%), and poor outcome of underlying diagnosis (78.5%). Several of these causes were found in most cases (88.6%).

Tab. 3. Comparison of patients with or without LSC limitation: Multivariable analysis.
Comparison of patients with or without LSC limitation: Multivariable analysis.

Factors associated with hospital mortality in LSC limited patients

The hospital mortality rate of LSC limited patients was 53% (95%CI: [42–64]%) (Table 4). Patients with LSC limitations who died during the hospital stay were older, had higher SAPS II and SOFA scores, and suffered from much more acute hypoxemic respiratory failure compared with LSC limited patients who survived (Table 4). IMCU patients with digestive tract bleeding and LSC limitations had a good survival rate. Age, SOFA score, and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure cause were found to be independent predictor factors of hospital mortality in LSC limited patients (Table 5).

Tab. 4. Survival of patients with LSC limitation: Univariate analysis.
Survival of patients with LSC limitation: Univariate analysis.
Tab. 5. Mortality of patients with LSC limitation: Multivariable analysis.
Mortality of patients with LSC limitation: Multivariable analysis.

Comparisons between LSC limitations before and after IMCU admission in LSC limited patients

Amongst LSC limited patients, 55 (70%) had LSC limitations before IMCU admission compared to 24 (30%) patients who had LSC limitations after their admissions into IMCU Despite the small sample size, we performed an analysis that showed no significant differences between the two sub-groups regarding age, sex, severity scores, and in-hospital mortality rate. Medical diagnoses, particularly hypercapnic failure, were more frequently associated with LSC limitations before than after IMCU admission (S3 Table).

Characteristics of the 15 patients died after with withdrawal of LSC and modalities of withdrawal of LSC

Description of patients’ patterns is reported in S4 Table. In summary, median age was 75.5 years [61.8–81.5], Charlson score of 6.5 [5–7], Knaus index of 4 [3–4], and SAPS II of 38 [27–40]. Most of these patients were admitted for medical diagnosis, and presented with several comorbidities. No comparison with the LSC limited patients without withdrawal of LSC was made due to the small sample size. Cessation of LSC was realized soon after the admission (median delay 1 day, IQR 0–3) for most patients and included terminal sedation (88% of cases), with or without discontinuation of NIV (44% of NIV discontinuation cases).

Discussion

The study’s major findings were: 1) limitation of LSC was common in the IMCU and was often decided before patients’ admission. It was associated with a poor general condition or limited autonomy, comorbidities, however not with age. LSC limited patients presented with higher acute severity than unlimited LSC patients; 2) hospital mortality of LSC limited patients was high (42 patients, 53%) and related to age, preexisting organ failures or severe diseases, and acute severity. In LSC limited patients, hypoxemic respiratory failure cause was associated with high mortality, but not the hypercapnic respiratory failure cause. Finally, 20% of LSC limited patients (all of them under NIV) received terminal sedation as the main mode of LSC withdrawal. Half of these patients were weaned from NIV after LSC withdrawal decision.

Our results outline the daily hospital cycle of LSC limited patients’ admission to the IMCU. Few data are available to date on this topic [57], although, IMCU currently represents a significant part of acute care resources in Europe and Northern America [2, 15, 1619].

In our study, LSC limitation decisions appear to be more associated with patterns of frailty than with age alone, as in previous studies [1722]. Another interesting observation is that LSC limitation was found to be more frequently related to “medical admission patients” than to surgical admission causes. Our results are in accordance with what was reported earlier but in ICU [19, 20]. Strikingly, the LSC-limited patients also presented with higher severity scores in comparison to unlimited LSC patients admitted into the IMCU. IMCUs are not designed to receive and treat patients with multiple organ failures and high severity but appear to do so when a decision of LSC limitation is made [18].

Half of the LSC limited patients died during hospitalization. Accordingly, it is important to establish conditions that are associated with mortality to estimate when IMCU admission might likely be beneficial [23]. Independent predictor factors for hospital mortality in LSC limited patients were older age, chronic and acute severity, and admission patterns, with a clear gap between prognosis of hypercapnic and hypoxemic acute respiratory failures.

This last observation may reflect the difference in success probability of NIV according to the type of respiratory failure, as demonstrated previously [2327], since NIV was the main organ support used in these patients. Thus, the use of NIV, rather than an “NIV for DNI patient with respiratory failure” approach, should imply thoughts about etiologic diagnoses, goals of care, and patients’ response [28, 29]. This point is important, since NIV-limited use in LSC limited patients with a poor predicted outcome might be considered as “unreasonable” if it doesn’t support patient’s relief, or necessitates more constraints [16].

The impact of chronic organ failures in IMCU patients underscores the importance of preexisting pathologic conditions in determining the objectives of LSC care, a fact that is often underestimated in the ICU setting [3032].

Moreover, the poor prognosis of the majority of severe patients admitted to the IMCU with LSC limitations raises questions about the aims of care for them. Is it reasonable to hope for recovery for the most frail and severe patients? [22, 30, 31]. The impact of bed occupancy by such patients has been studied in the ICU, and it has been suggested that it could harm other patients through unavailability of ICU care [32]. It is also worthwhile to note that these “futile” admissions for end-of-life care in ICUs generate significant costs [3335]. These problems have to be looked at in the IMCUs because of their role in the chain of care for critically ill patients [4, 13, 36].

Another key observation is that the care of such patients with unlikely hope for recovery is the potential perception of “inappropriate care” by medical and nursing teams [37, 38], which has been linked to staff burn-out and retention [37, 39].

Other factors that could be linked to associated staff grievances and personal struggles are the patterns of LSC withdrawal. NIV was discontinued in nearly a half of patients (7 patients, 44%) with LSC withdrawal, a fact that could reflect its use as a palliative measure to relieve dyspnea [25, 29], or physicians’ differences in modalities of stopping ventilation [40, 41].

Our study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective monocentric, time-limited experience, and thus, our data could not be generalized without previously extended research. Nevertheless, although data were obtained in 2012, the scenario that is addressed has not changed in our institution and is not outdated. Secondly, the proper weight of comorbidities in IMCU patients’ outcome remains also difficult to establish, since all these patients presented with high Charlson scores, emphasizing their frailty. Some organ failures may be more involved in hospital mortality, but this has still to be established. Thirdly, LSC limitations in the other units at the same time were not recorded. Accordingly, it is hard to appreciate which part of LSC limitation and end of life process the IMCU is providing in the global acute care setting. Long-term survival or quality of life after hospital stay could not be studied either. Fourthly, use of NIV as a palliative measure [25] was not recorded, because the medical files did not inform in which goal of care NIV was performed. Finally, the small sample size may have overlooked factors associated with LSC limitation or mortality.

Conclusions

We observed a 19.5% of patients with limitation of LSC admitted into our IMCU. Patients with heavy medical conditions and high severity generally have a poor prognosis. Nevertheless, some patients, notably those with hypercapnic failure, benefit from IMCU admission, with NIV as a key therapy. Poor outcomes in the most critical patients, with several comorbidities and acute organ failures, raises questions about the appropriateness of care and subsequent impact on staff.

Supporting information

S1 Table [docx]

S2 Table [docx]

S3 Table [docx]

S4 Table [docx]

S1 Text [docx]

S1 Data [xlsx]


Zdroje

1. Rosenthal GE, Sirio CA, Shepardson LB, Harper DL, Rotondi AJ, Cooper GS. Use of intensive care units for patients with low severity of illness. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158 (10):1144–51. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.10.1144 9605788

2. Prin M, Wunsch H. The role of stepdown units in hospital care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 190(11):1210–6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201406-1117PP 25163008

3. Vincent JL, Rubenfeld GD. Does intermediate care improve patient outcomes or reduce costs? Crit Care 2015; 19: 89. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-0813-0 25774925

4. Prin M, Harrison D, Rowan K, Wunsch H. Epidemiology of Admissions to 11 stand-alone high-dependency care units in the UK. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41(11): 1903–10. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4011-y 26359162

5. Nava S, Sturani C, Hartl S, Magni G, Ciontu M, Corrado A, et al. End-of-life decision making in respiratory intermediate care units: a European survey. Eur Respir J 2007; 30 (1): 156–64. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00128306 17601972

6. Alegre F, Landecho MF, Huerta A, Fernández-Ros N, Martínez-Urbistondo D, García N, et al. Design and Performance of a New Severity Score for Intermediate Care. PLoS One 2015;10(6): e0130989. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130989 26121578

7. Hager DN, Tanykonda V, Noorain Z, Sahetya SK, Simpson CE, Lucena JF, et al. Hospital mortality prediction for intermediate care patients: Assessing the generalizability of the Intermediate Care Unit Severity Score (IMCUSS). J Crit Care 2018; 46:94–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.009 29804039

8. Lautrette A, Garrouste-Orgeat M, Bertrand PM, Goldgran-Toledano D, Jamali S, Laurent V, et al. Outcomerea Study Group. 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. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41(10): 1763–72. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3944-5 26149302

9. Société de réanimation de langue française. Limitation et arrêt des traitements en réanimation adulte. Actualisation des recommandations de la société de réanimation de langue française. Réanimation 2010; 19:679–98.

10. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5):373–83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 3558716

11. Christensen S, Johansen MB, Christiansen CF, Jensen R, Lemeshow S. Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index with SAPS and APACHE scores for prediction of mortality following intensive care. Clinical Epidemiology 2011; 3: 203–11. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S20247 21750629

12. Knaus W, Zimmerman J, Wagner D, Draper EA, Lawrence DE. APACHE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation: Physiologically Based Classification System. Crit Care Med 1981; 9(8): 591–97. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198108000-00008 7261642

13. Montuclard L, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Timsit JF, Misset B, De Jonghe B, Carlet J. Outcome, functional autonomy, and quality of life of elderly patients with a long-term intensive care unit stay. Crit Care Med 2000; 28(10):3389–95. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200010000-00002 11057791

14. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Model-Building Strategies and Methods for Logistic Regression. In: Applied Logistic Regression. Second Edition; pp. 91–142.

15. Wunsch H, Harrison DA, Jones A, Rowan K. The impact of the organization of high-dependency care on acute hospital mortality and patient flow for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191(2):186–93. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201408-1525OC 25494358

16. Sjoding MW, Valley TS, Prescott HC, et al. Rising billing for Intermediate Care among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries between 1996 and 2010. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193(2):163–70. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201506-1252OC 26372779

17. Rubio O, Sanchez JM, Fernandez R. Life-sustaining treatment limitation criteria upon admission to the intensive care unit: Results of Spanish national multicenter. Med intensive 2013; 37(5): 333–338.

18. Kahn JM. The evolving role of dedicated weaning facilities in critical care. Intensive Care med 2010; 36(1): 8–10. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1672-4 19784621

19. Lapichino G, Corbella D, Minelli C, Mills GH, Artigas A, Edbooke DL, et al. Reasons for refusal of admission to intensive care an impact on mortality. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36(10): 1772–9. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1933-2 20533023

20. Quill C, Ratcliffe S, Harhay M, Sporchia A, Mazza M, Pruneri G, et al. Variation in decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies en US ICUs. Chest 2014; 146 (3):573–82. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-2529 24522751

21. Robert R, Coudroy R, Ragot S, Lesieur O, Runge I, Souday V, et al. Influence of ICU-bed availability on ICU admission decisions. Ann Intensive Care 2015; 5(1):55.

22. Sprung CL, Artigas A, Kesecioglu J, et al. (2012) The Eldicus prospective, observational study of triage decision making in European intensive care units. Part II: Intensive care benefit for the elderly. Crit Care Med 40: 132–138. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232d6b0 22001580

23. Martinez-Urbistondo D, Alegre F, Carmona-Torre F, Huerta A, Fernandez-Ros N, Landecho MF, et al. Mortality Prediction in Patients Undergoing Non-Invasive Ventilation in Intermediate Care. PLoS One 2015; 5; 10 (10): e0139702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139702 26436420

24. Nava S, Hill N. Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Lancet 2009; 374(9685):250–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60496-7 19616722

25. Azoulay E, Kouatchet A, Jaber S, Lambert J, Meziani F, Schmidt M, et al. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in patients having declined tracheal intubation. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39(2):292–301. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2746-2 23184037

26. Demoule A, Chevret S, Carlucci A, Kouatchet A, Jaber S, Meziani F, et al. Changing use of noninvasive ventilation in critically ill patients: trends over 15 years in francophone countries. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42(1):82–92. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4087-4 26464393

27. Schettino G, Altobelli N, Kacmarek RM. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation reverses acute respiratory failure in select « do not intubate » patients. Crit Care Med 2005; 33(9) 1976–1982. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000178176.51024.82 16148468

28. Lemyze M, Mallat J, Gasan G, Van Grunderbeeck N, Tronchon L, Thevenin D. NIV should be delivered in do-not-intubate patients, but how? Intensive Care Med 2013; 39(5):983.

29. Azoulay E, Demoule A, Jaber S, Kouatchet A, Meert AP, Papazian L, et al. Palliative noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37(8): 1250–1257. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2263-8 21656292

30. Hillman K, Cardona-Morrell M. The ten barriers to appropriate management of patients at the end of their life. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41(9): 1700–2. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3712-6 25749572

31. Ferrante LE, Pisani MA, Murphy TE, Gahbauer EA, Leo-Summers LS, Gill TM. Functional trajectories among older persons before and after critical illness. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175(4): 523–9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7889 25665067

32. Niederman MS, Berger JT. The delivery of futile care is harmful to other patients. Crit Care Med 2010; 38(10):518–22.

33. Heyland D, Cook D, Bagshaw SM, Garland A, Stelfox HT, Mehta S, et al. The Very Elderly Admitted to ICU: A Quality Finish? Crit Care Med 2015; 43(7):1352–60. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001024 25901550

34. Binney ZO, Quest TE, Feingold PL, Buchman T, Majesko AA. Feasibility and economic impact of dedicated hospice inpatient units for terminally Ill ICU patients. Crit Care Med 2014; 42(5): 1074–80. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000120 24351372

35. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirbe WT, Weissfeld LA, Watson RS, Rickert T, et al. Use of Intensive Care at the end of life in the United States: an epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med 2004; 32(3): 638–43. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000114816.62331.08 15090940

36. Capuzzo M, Volta C, Tassinati T, Moreno R, Valentin A, Guidet B, et al. Hospital mortality of adults admitted to Intensive Care Units in hospitals with and without Intermediate Care Units: a multicentre European cohort study. Crit Care 2014; 18(5): 551. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0551-8 25664865

37. Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, et al. End of life practices in European Intensive Care Units, The Ethicus Study. JAMA 2003; 290(6): 790–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.6.790 12915432

38. Downar J, You J, Bagshaw S, Golan E, Lamontagne F, Burns K, et al. Non beneficial treatment Canada definitions, causes, and potential solutions from the perspective of healthcare practitioners. Crit Care Med 2015; 43(2): 270–81. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000704 25377017

39. Piers RD, Azoulay E, Ricou B, DeKeyser Ganz F, Max A, Michalsen A, et al. Inappropriate Care in European ICUs Confronting views from nurses and junior and senior physicians. Chest 2014; 146(2): 267–275. doi: 10.1378/chest.14-0256 24832567

40. Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P, Lemaire F. Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive care units in France: a prospective survey. French LATAREA Group. Lancet 2001; 357(9249): 9–14. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03564-9 11197395

41. Azoulay E, Metnitz B, Sprung CL, Timsit JF, Lemaire F, Bauer P, et al. End-of-life practices in 282 intensive care units: data from the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35(4): 623–30. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1310-6 18850088


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11
Nejčtenější tento týden
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
Kurzy Podcasty Doporučená témata Časopisy
Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu, se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#