Literature DB >> 13679526

Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in anticipation of death in the intensive care unit.

Deborah Cook1, Graeme Rocker, John Marshall, Peter Sjokvist, Peter Dodek, Lauren Griffith, Andreas Freitag, Joseph Varon, Christine Bradley, Mitchell Levy, Simon Finfer, Cindy Hamielec, Joseph McMullin, Bruce Weaver, Stephen Walter, Gordon Guyatt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients who are receiving mechanical ventilation, the factors associated with physicians' decisions to withdraw ventilation in anticipation of death are unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical determinants that were associated with the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: We studied adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation in 15 intensive care units, recording base-line physiological characteristics, daily Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores, the patient's decision-making ability, the type of life support administered, the use of do-not-resuscitate orders, the physician's prediction of the patient's status, and the physician's perceptions of the patient's preferences about the use of life support. We examined the relation between these factors and withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, using Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis.
RESULTS: Of 851 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation, 539 (63.3 percent) were successfully weaned, 146 (17.2 percent) died while receiving mechanical ventilation, and 166 (19.5 percent) had mechanical ventilation withdrawn. The need for inotropes or vasopressors was associated with withdrawal of the ventilator (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.20 to 2.66; P=0.004), as were the physician's prediction that the patient's likelihood of survival in the intensive care unit was less than 10 percent (hazard ratio, 3.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.39 to 8.79; P=0.002), the physician's prediction that future cognitive function would be severely impaired (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 4.94; P=0.04), and the physician's perception that the patient did not want life support used (hazard ratio, 4.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.57 to 6.81; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Rather than age or the severity of the illness and organ dysfunction, the strongest determinants of the withdrawal of ventilation in critically ill patients were the physician's perception that the patient preferred not to use life support, the physician's predictions of a low likelihood of survival in the intensive care unit and a high likelihood of poor cognitive function, and the use of inotropes or vasopressors. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 13679526     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa030083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  119 in total

1.  What really matters in end-of-life discussions? Perspectives of patients in hospital with serious illness and their families.

Authors:  John J You; Peter Dodek; Francois Lamontagne; James Downar; Tasnim Sinuff; Xuran Jiang; Andrew G Day; Daren K Heyland
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Association of body mass with pulmonary function in the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP).

Authors:  K G Tantisira; A A Litonjua; S T Weiss; A L Fuhlbrigge
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Variability in withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies.

Authors:  Sam D Shemie; Patricia S Fontela
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Failure of the Current Advance Care Planning Paradigm: Advocating for a Communications-Based Approach.

Authors:  Laura Vearrier
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2016-12

5.  Life-support limitation in the pre-hospital setting.

Authors:  Graeme Rocker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-08-02       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Is the Canadian health care system ready for donation after cardiac death? A note of caution.

Authors:  Christopher James Doig
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-10-10       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  A scenario-based, randomized trial of patient values and functional prognosis on intensivist intent to discuss withdrawing life support.

Authors:  Alison E Turnbull; Jenna R Krall; A Parker Ruhl; J Randall Curtis; Scott D Halpern; Bryan M Lau; Dale M Needham
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Deciding in the dark: advance directives and continuation of treatment in chronic critical illness.

Authors:  Sharon L Camhi; Alice F Mercado; R Sean Morrison; Qingling Du; David M Platt; Gary I August; Judith E Nelson
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Reasons, considerations, difficulties and documentation of end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units: the ETHICUS Study.

Authors:  Charles L Sprung; Thomas Woodcock; Peter Sjokvist; Bara Ricou; Hans-Henrik Bulow; Anne Lippert; Paulo Maia; Simon Cohen; Mario Baras; Seppo Hovilehto; Didier Ledoux; Dermot Phelan; Elisabet Wennberg; Wolfgang Schobersberger
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Factors associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a multicenter cohort study.

Authors:  Nicolas Côte; Alexis F Turgeon; François Lauzier; Lynne Moore; Damon C Scales; Francis Bernard; Ryan Zarychanski; Karen E A Burns; Maureen O Meade; David Zygun; Jean-François Simard; Amélie Boutin; Jacques G Brochu; Dean A Fergusson
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.210

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.