Characteristics of limiting life support therapies in patients who died in the ICU
Abstract
Introduction: withdraw and withhold life support therapies is an usual and ethically accepted practice.
Objectives: to determine the frequency, the directives and factors associated with withdrawing and withholding life support therapies in patients who died in ICU. Determine the frequency and characteristics of the record of this process in clinical history.
Design: multicentric observational study of cross section.
Setting: clinical histories of 8 public and private mixed ICUs in Uruguay were analyzed.
Patients: all patients over 18 years who died in a period of 6 consecutive months in 2011 were included.
Interventions: analysis of the characteristics of patients through review of clinical histories.
Results: we analyzed 210 patients who died. Withdrawing or withholding was identified in 63 (30%). 75% of the decisions consisted in withdraw therapeutic measures. Factors independently associated to withdrowing or withholding therapies were: an older age (OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.07), p = 0.001), a longer stay in ICU (OR 1.06 (95% CI 1, 02 - 1.11), p = 0.001), and the limitation for activities of daily living (OR 4.65 (95% CI 1.1 -19.6), p = 0.035). 70% of the decisions were recorded in the clinical history. The most frequently removed vital supports were: parenteral nutrition (100%), vasopressors (79%), enteral nutrition (64%) and antimicrobials (52%). Invasive mechanical ventilatory assistance was removed in 33% of the cases.
Conclusions: one third of patients die with LSTL. These types of decisions are associated with a poor quality of life, an older age and a longer stay in the ICU. One third of LTSV decisions are not registered.
References
(1) Walling AM, Asch SM, Lorenz KA, Roth CP, Barry T, Kahn KL, et al. The quality of care provided to hospitalized patients at the end of life. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1057-63.
(2) Fumis RR, Deheinzelin D. Respiratory support withdrawal in intensive care units: families, physicians and nurses views on two hypothetical clinical scenarios. Crit Care 2010; 14(6):R235.
(3) Rapin M, Le Gall JR. Palliative comfort therapy in critically ill patients. Bull Acad Nat Med 1979; 163:566-71.
(4) Rapin M, Le Gall JR, Raphaël JC. Limitations of resuscitation. Acquis Med Recent 1981; 198:7-17.
(5) Smedira NG, Evans BH, Grais LS, Cohen NH, Lo B, Cooke M, et al. Withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. N Eng J Med 1990; 322:309-15.
(6) Bandrauk N, Downar J, Paunovic B. Withholding and withdrawing life- sustaining treatment: The Canadian Critical Care Society position paper. Can J Anaesth 2018; 65(1):105-22.
(7) Yaguchi A, Truog RD, Curtis R, Luce JM, Levy MM, Mélot C, et al. International differences in end-of-life attitudes in the intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:1970-5.
(8) Cuttini M, Nadai M, Kaminski M, Hansen G, de Leeuw R, Lenoir S, et al. Endof-life decisions in neonatal intensive care: physicians' self reported practices in seven European countries. EURONIC Study Group. Lancet 2000; 355:2112-8.
(9) Sprung CL, Eidelman LA. Worldwide similarities and differences in the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22:1003-5.
(10) Lobo SM, Simoni FHB, Jakob SM, Estella A, Vadi S, Bluethgen A, et al. Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life-support in the ICU: a worldwide perspective. Chest 2017; 152:321-9.
(11) Devictor DJ, Tissieres P, Gillis J, Robert Truog R. Intercontinental differences in end-of-life attitudes in the pediatric intensive care unit: results of a worldwide survey. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2008; 9:560-6.
(12) Piva J, Lago P, Othero J, Garcia PC, Fiori R, Fiori H, et al. Evaluating end of life practices in ten Brazilian paediatric and adult intensive care units. J Med Ethics 2010; 36:344-8.
(13) Moritz RD, Deicas A, Capalbo M, Forte DN, Kretzer LP, Lago P, et al. II Forum of the "End of Life Study Group of the Southern Cone of America": palliative care definitions, recommendations and integrated actions for intensive care and pediatric intensive care units. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2011; 23:24-9.
(14) 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; 35:623-30.
(15) Sprung CL, Carmel S, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Cohen SL, Maia P, et al. Attitudes of European physicians, nurses, patients, and families regarding end-of-life decisions: the ETHICATT study. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:104-10.
(16) Blazquez V, Rodríguez A, Sandiumenge A, Oliver E, Cancio B, Ibanez M, et al. Factors related to limitation of life support within 48 h of intensive care unit admission: a multicenter study. Med Intensiva 2018 May 7. doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2018.03.010.
(17) Wynn A, Wise M, Wright MJ, Rafaat A, Wang YZ, Steeb G, et al. Accuracy of administrative and trauma registry databases. J Trauma 2001; 51:464-8.
(18) Spronk PE, Kuiper AV, Rommes JH, Korevaar JC, Schultz MJ. The practice of and documentation on withholding and withdrawing life support: a retrospective study in two Dutch intensive care units. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:841-6.
(19) Mani RK, Mandal AK, Bal S, Javeri Y, Kumar R, Nama DK, et al. End-of-life decisions in an Indian intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35:1713-9.
(20) Long AC, Muni S, Treece PD, Engelberg RA, Nielsen EL, Fitzpatrick AL, et al. Time to death after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation: specific respiratory and physiologic parameters may inform physician predictions. J Palliat Med 2015; 18:1040-7.
(21) Gerstel E, Engelberg RA, Koepsell T, Curtis JR. Duration of withdrawal of life support in the intensive care unit and association with family satisfaction. Am J Respir Crit Care 2008; 178:798-804.
