D A Asch1, K Faber-Langendoen, J A Shea, N A Christakis. 1. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104-6218, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the observed sequence of withdrawal of eight different forms of life-sustaining treatment and to determine whether aspects of those treatments determine the order of withdrawal. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We observed 211 consecutive patients dying in four midwestern US hospitals from whom at least one of eight specific life-sustaining treatments was or could have been withdrawn. We used a parametric statistical technique to explain the order of withdrawal based on selected characteristics of the forms of life support, including cost, scarcity, and discomfort. RESULTS: The eight forms of life support were withdrawn in a distinct sequence. From earliest to latest, the order was blood products, hemodialysis, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, intravenous fluids, and tube feedings (P <0.0001). The sequence was almost identical to that observed in a previous study based on hypothetical scenarios. Forms of life support that were perceived as more artificial, scarce, or expensive were withdrawn earlier. CONCLUSION: The preference for withdrawing some forms of life-sustaining treatments more than others is associated with intrinsic characteristics of these treatments. Once the decision has been made to forgo life-sustaining treatment, the process remains complex and appears to target many different goals simultaneously.
PURPOSE: To describe the observed sequence of withdrawal of eight different forms of life-sustaining treatment and to determine whether aspects of those treatments determine the order of withdrawal. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We observed 211 consecutive patients dying in four midwestern US hospitals from whom at least one of eight specific life-sustaining treatments was or could have been withdrawn. We used a parametric statistical technique to explain the order of withdrawal based on selected characteristics of the forms of life support, including cost, scarcity, and discomfort. RESULTS: The eight forms of life support were withdrawn in a distinct sequence. From earliest to latest, the order was blood products, hemodialysis, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, intravenous fluids, and tube feedings (P <0.0001). The sequence was almost identical to that observed in a previous study based on hypothetical scenarios. Forms of life support that were perceived as more artificial, scarce, or expensive were withdrawn earlier. CONCLUSION: The preference for withdrawing some forms of life-sustaining treatments more than others is associated with intrinsic characteristics of these treatments. Once the decision has been made to forgo life-sustaining treatment, the process remains complex and appears to target many different goals simultaneously.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach
Authors: Sam D Shemie; Andrew J Baker; Greg Knoll; William Wall; Graeme Rocker; Daniel Howes; Janet Davidson; Joe Pagliarello; Jane Chambers-Evans; Sandra Cockfield; Catherine Farrell; Walter Glannon; William Gourlay; David Grant; Stéphan Langevin; Brian Wheelock; Kimberly Young; John Dossetor Journal: CMAJ Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Eric Racine; Marie-Josée Dion; Christine A C Wijman; Judy Illes; Maarten G Lansberg Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.210