OBJECTIVES: Few studies have focused on decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support therapies in the emergency department. Our objectives were to identify clinical situations where life-support was withheld or withdrawn, the criteria used by physicians to justify their decisions, the modalities necessary to implement these decisions, patient disposition, and outcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective unicenter survey in an Emergency Department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All non-trauma patients (n=119) for whom a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments was taken between January and September 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Choice of criteria justifying the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments, time interval from ED admission to the decision; type of decision implemented, outcome. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-five non-trauma patients were admitted during the study period, 119 were included, mean age 75+/-13 years. Resuscitation procedures were instituted for 96 (80%) patients before a subsequent decision was taken. Physicians chose on average 6+/-2 items to justify their decision; the principal acute medical disorder and futility of care were the two criteria most often used. Median time interval to reach the decision was 187 min. Withdrawal involved 37% of patients and withholding 63% of patients. The family was involved in the decision-making process in 72% of patients. The median time interval from the decision to death was 16 h (5 min to 140 days). CONCLUSION: Withdrawing and withholding life-support therapy involved elderly patients with underlying chronic cardiopulmonary disease or metastatic cancer or patients with acute non-treatable illness.
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have focused on decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support therapies in the emergency department. Our objectives were to identify clinical situations where life-support was withheld or withdrawn, the criteria used by physicians to justify their decisions, the modalities necessary to implement these decisions, patient disposition, and outcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective unicenter survey in an Emergency Department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All non-traumapatients (n=119) for whom a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments was taken between January and September 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Choice of criteria justifying the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments, time interval from ED admission to the decision; type of decision implemented, outcome. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-five non-traumapatients were admitted during the study period, 119 were included, mean age 75+/-13 years. Resuscitation procedures were instituted for 96 (80%) patients before a subsequent decision was taken. Physicians chose on average 6+/-2 items to justify their decision; the principal acute medical disorder and futility of care were the two criteria most often used. Median time interval to reach the decision was 187 min. Withdrawal involved 37% of patients and withholding 63% of patients. The family was involved in the decision-making process in 72% of patients. The median time interval from the decision to death was 16 h (5 min to 140 days). CONCLUSION: Withdrawing and withholding life-support therapy involved elderly patients with underlying chronic cardiopulmonary disease or metastatic cancer or patients with acute non-treatable illness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach
Authors: J R Le Gall; P Loirat; A Alperovitch; P Glaser; C Granthil; D Mathieu; P Mercier; R Thomas; D Villers Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1984-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Simon Cohen; Charles Sprung; Peter Sjokvist; Anne Lippert; Bara Ricou; Mario Baras; Seppo Hovilehto; Paulo Maia; Dermot Phelan; Konrad Reinhart; Karl Werdan; Hans-Henrik Bulow; Tom Woodcock Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-07-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Ann C Long; Robert Y Lee; Cara L McDermott; Ruth A Engelberg; J Randall Curtis Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Philippe Le Conte; David Riochet; Eric Batard; Christelle Volteau; Bruno Giraudeau; Idriss Arnaudet; Laetitia Labastire; Jacques Levraut; Frédéric Thys; Dominique Lauque; Claude Piva; Jeannot Schmidt; David Trewick; Gilles Potel Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-13 Impact factor: 17.440