OBJECTIVE: Physician prediction of outcome in critically ill neurologic patients impacts treatment decisions and goals of care. In this observational study, we prospectively compared predictions by neurointensivists to patient outcomes at 6 months. METHODS: Consecutive neurologic patients requiring mechanical ventilation for 72 hours or more were enrolled. The attending neurointensivist was asked to predict 6-month 1) functional outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS]), 2) quality of life (QOL), and 3) whether supportive care should be withdrawn. Six-month functional outcome was determined by telephone interviews and dichotomized to good (mRS 0-3) and poor outcome (mRS 4-6). RESULTS: Of 187 eligible patients, 144 were enrolled. Neurointensivists correctly predicted 6-month functional outcome in 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72%-86%) of patients. Accuracy for a predicted good outcome was 63% (95% CI, 50%-74%) and for poor outcome 94% (95% CI, 85%-98%). Excluding patients who had life support withdrawn, accuracy for good outcome was 73% (95% CI, 60%-84%) and for poor outcome 87% (95% CI, 74%-94%). Accuracy for exact agreement between neurointensivists' mRS predictions and actual 6-month mRS was only 43% (95% CI, 35%-52%). Predicted accuracy for QOL was 58% (95% CI, 39%-74%) for good/excellent and 67% (95% CI, 46%-83%) for poor/fair. Of 27 patients for whom withdrawal of care was recommended, 1 patient survived in a vegetative state. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of long-term functional outcomes in critically ill neurologic patients is challenging. Our neurointensivists were more accurate in predicting poor outcome than good outcome in patients requiring mechanical ventilation >or=72 hours.
OBJECTIVE: Physician prediction of outcome in critically ill neurologicpatients impacts treatment decisions and goals of care. In this observational study, we prospectively compared predictions by neurointensivists to patient outcomes at 6 months. METHODS: Consecutive neurologicpatients requiring mechanical ventilation for 72 hours or more were enrolled. The attending neurointensivist was asked to predict 6-month 1) functional outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS]), 2) quality of life (QOL), and 3) whether supportive care should be withdrawn. Six-month functional outcome was determined by telephone interviews and dichotomized to good (mRS 0-3) and poor outcome (mRS 4-6). RESULTS: Of 187 eligible patients, 144 were enrolled. Neurointensivists correctly predicted 6-month functional outcome in 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72%-86%) of patients. Accuracy for a predicted good outcome was 63% (95% CI, 50%-74%) and for poor outcome 94% (95% CI, 85%-98%). Excluding patients who had life support withdrawn, accuracy for good outcome was 73% (95% CI, 60%-84%) and for poor outcome 87% (95% CI, 74%-94%). Accuracy for exact agreement between neurointensivists' mRS predictions and actual 6-month mRS was only 43% (95% CI, 35%-52%). Predicted accuracy for QOL was 58% (95% CI, 39%-74%) for good/excellent and 67% (95% CI, 46%-83%) for poor/fair. Of 27 patients for whom withdrawal of care was recommended, 1 patient survived in a vegetative state. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of long-term functional outcomes in critically ill neurologicpatients is challenging. Our neurointensivists were more accurate in predicting poor outcome than good outcome in patients requiring mechanical ventilation >or=72 hours.
Authors: K J Becker; A B Baxter; W A Cohen; H M Bybee; D L Tirschwell; D W Newell; H R Winn; W T Longstreth Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-03-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Deborah Cook; 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 Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Lisa A Weissfeld; R Scott Watson; Tim Rickert; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Pavel Atanasov; Andreas Diamantaras; Amanda MacPherson; Esther Vinarov; Daniel M Benjamin; Ian Shrier; Friedemann Paul; Ulrich Dirnagl; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David Y Hwang; Cameron A Dell; Mary J Sparks; Tiffany D Watson; Carl D Langefeld; Mary E Comeau; Jonathan Rosand; Thomas W K Battey; Sebastian Koch; Mario L Perez; Michael L James; Jessica McFarlin; Jennifer L Osborne; Daniel Woo; Steven J Kittner; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matthew P Kirschen; Alexis A Topjian; Rachel Hammond; Judy Illes; Nicholas S Abend Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Ari R Joffe; Joe Carcillo; Natalie Anton; Allan deCaen; Yong Y Han; Michael J Bell; Frank A Maffei; John Sullivan; James Thomas; Gonzalo Garcia-Guerra Journal: Philos Ethics Humanit Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 2.464