Literature DB >> 15190965

Clinician predictions of intensive care unit mortality.

Graeme Rocker1, Deborah Cook, Peter Sjokvist, Bruce Weaver, Simon Finfer, Ellen McDonald, John Marshall, Anne Kirby, Mitchell Levy, Peter Dodek, Daren Heyland, Gordon Guyatt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Predicting outcomes for critically ill patients is an important aspect of discussions with families in the intensive care unit. Our objective was to evaluate clinical intensive care unit survival predictions and their consequences for mechanically ventilated patients.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Fifteen tertiary care centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients > or = 18 yrs of age with expected intensive care unit stay > or = 72 hrs.
INTERVENTIONS: We recorded baseline characteristics at intensive care unit admission. Daily we measured multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS), use of advanced life support, patient preferences for life support, and intensivist and bedside intensive care unit nurse estimated probability of intensive care unit survival.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 851 patients were aged 61.2 (+/- 17.6, mean + SD) yrs with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 21.7 (+/- 8.6). Three hundred and four patients (35.7%) died in the intensive care unit, and 341 (40.1%) were assessed by a physician at least once to have a < 10% intensive care unit survival probability. Independent predictors of intensive care unit mortality were baseline APACHE II score (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.24, for a 5-point increase) and daily factors such as MODS (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-3.04, for a 5-point increase), use of inotropes or vasopressors (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.77), dialysis (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), patient preference to limit life support (hazard ratio, 10.22; 95% confidence interval, 7.38-14.16), and physician but not nurse prediction of < 10% survival. The impact of physician estimates of < 10% intensive care unit survival was greater for patients without vs. those with preferences to limit life support (p < .001) and for patients with less vs. more severe organ dysfunction (p < .001). Mechanical ventilation, inotropes or vasopressors, and dialysis were withdrawn more often when physicians predicted < 10% probability of intensive care unit survival (all ps < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Physician estimates of intensive care unit survival < 10% are associated with subsequent life support limitation and more powerfully predict intensive care unit mortality than illness severity, evolving or resolving organ dysfunction, and use of inotropes or vasopressors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15190965     DOI: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000126402.51524.52

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  55 in total

1.  Comparison of APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III and influence of resuscitation status on model performance.

Authors:  Mark T Keegan; Ognjen Gajic; Bekele Afessa
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Variability in withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies.

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

Review 3.  Setting the vision: applied patient-reported outcomes and smart, connected digital healthcare systems to improve patient-centered outcomes prediction in critical illness.

Authors:  Nicholas G Wysham; Amy P Abernethy; Christopher E Cox
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.687

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

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

5.  The art versus science of predicting prognosis: can a prognostic index predict short-term mortality better than experienced nurses do?

Authors:  David J Casarett; Sue Farrington; Teresa Craig; Julie Slattery; Joan Harrold; Betty Oldanie; Jason Roy; Richard Biehl; Joan Teno
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 2.947

6.  Prognostication in neurocritical care: just crystal ball gazing?

Authors:  Erwin J O Kompanje
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.210

7.  Inclusion of Unstructured Clinical Text Improves Early Prediction of Death or Prolonged ICU Stay.

Authors:  Gary E Weissman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Lyle H Ungar; Michael O Harhay; Casey S Greene; Blanca E Himes; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  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

Review 9.  Clinical nihilism in neuroemergencies.

Authors:  J Claude Hemphill; Douglas B White
Journal:  Emerg Med Clin North Am       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Characteristics and outcomes of trauma patients with ICU lengths of stay 30 days and greater: a seven-year retrospective study.

Authors:  Adrian W Ong; Laurel A Omert; Diane Vido; Brian M Goodman; Jack Protetch; Aurelio Rodriguez; Elan Jeremitsky
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.