Literature DB >> 21037471

Do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders and prognostic models for intraparenchymal hemorrhage.

Claire J Creutzfeldt1, Kyra J Becker, Jonathan R Weinstein, Sandeep P Khot, Thomas O McPharlin, Thanh G Ton, W T Longstreth, David L Tirschwell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Statistical models predicting outcome after intraparenchymal hemorrhage include patients irrespective of do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders. We built a model to explore how the inclusion of patients with do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders affects intraparenchymal hemorrhage prognostic models.
DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study from May 2001 until September 2003.
SETTING: University-affiliated tertiary referral hospital in Seattle, WA. PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four consecutive patients with spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We retrospectively abstracted information from medical records of intraparenchymal hemorrhage patients admitted to a single hospital. Using multivariate logistic regression of presenting clinical characteristics, but not do-not-attempt-resuscitation status, we generated a prognostic score for favorable outcome (defined as moderate disability or better at discharge). We compared observed probability of favorable outcome with that predicted, stratified by do-not-attempt-resuscitation status. We then generated a modified prognostic score using only non-do-not-attempt-resuscitation patients. Records of 424 patients were reviewed: 44% had favorable outcome, 43% had a do-not-attempt-resuscitation order, and 38% died in hospital. The observed and predicted probability of favorable outcome agreed well with all patients taken together. The observed probability of favorable outcome was significantly higher than predicted in non-do-not-attempt-resuscitation patients and significantly lower in do-not-attempt-resuscitation patients. Results were similar when applying a previously published and validated prognostic score. Our modified prognostic score was no longer pessimistic in non-do-not-attempt-resuscitation patients but remained overly optimistic in do-not-attempt-resuscitation patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Although our prognostic model was well-calibrated when assessing all intraparenchymal hemorrhage patients, predictions were significantly pessimistic in patients without and optimistic in those with do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders. Such pessimism may drive decisions not to attempt resuscitation in patients in whom a favorable outcome may have been possible, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. To be most useful in clinical decision making, intraparenchymal hemorrhage prognostic models should be calibrated to large intraparenchymal hemorrhage cohorts in whom do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders were not used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21037471      PMCID: PMC3199375          DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181fb7b49

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


  14 in total

1.  Withdrawal of support in intracerebral hemorrhage may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

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

Review 2.  Applicability and relevance of models that predict short term outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage.

Authors:  M J Ariesen; A Algra; H B van der Worp; G J E Rinkel
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 10.154

3.  Global variation in stroke burden and mortality: estimates from monitoring, surveillance, and modelling.

Authors:  S Claiborne Johnston; Shanthi Mendis; Colin D Mathers
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2009-02-21       Impact factor: 44.182

4.  The effect of do-not-resuscitate orders on physician decision-making.

Authors:  Mary Catherine Beach; R Sean Morrison
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 5.  Prognosis and decision making in severe stroke.

Authors:  Robert G Holloway; Curtis G Benesch; W Scott Burgin; Justine B Zentner
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The ICH score: a simple, reliable grading scale for intracerebral hemorrhage.

Authors:  J C Hemphill; D C Bonovich; L Besmertis; G T Manley; S C Johnston
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Development and validation of a prognostic model to predict recovery following intracerebral hemorrhage.

Authors:  Christian Weimar; Michael Roth; Vera Willig; Panagiotis Kostopoulos; Jens Benemann; Hans-Christoph Diener
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Prediction of functional outcome in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage: the FUNC score.

Authors:  Natalia S Rost; Eric E Smith; Yuchiao Chang; Ryan W Snider; Rishi Chanderraj; Kristin Schwab; Emily FitzMaurice; Lauren Wendell; Joshua N Goldstein; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 7.914

9.  Prospective validation of the ICH Score for 12-month functional outcome.

Authors:  J Claude Hemphill; Mary Farrant; Terry A Neill
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 9.910

10.  Do-not-resuscitate orders, unintended consequences, and the ripple effect.

Authors:  J Claude Hemphill
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  22 in total

1.  Intracerebral haemorrhage: Prognostic scales versus clinical judgment in ICH.

Authors:  Daniel F Hanley
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 42.937

2.  Variability in physician prognosis and recommendations after intracerebral hemorrhage.

Authors:  Darin B Zahuranec; Angela Fagerlin; Brisa N Sánchez; Meghan E Roney; Bradford B Thompson; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Lewis B Morgenstern
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 3.  Communication, Leadership, and Decision-Making in the Neuro-ICU.

Authors:  Stephen Trevick; Minjee Kim; Andrew Naidech
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 5.081

Review 4.  Scoping Review and Commentary on Prognostication for Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage with Advances in Surgical Techniques.

Authors:  Stephanie Zyck; Lydia Du; Grahame Gould; Julius Gene Latorre; Timothy Beutler; Alexa Bodman; Satish Krishnamurthy
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.210

5.  Assessment and Comparison of the Four Most Extensively Validated Prognostic Scales for Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tiago Gregório; Sara Pipa; Pedro Cavaleiro; Gabriel Atanásio; Inês Albuquerque; Paulo Castro Chaves; Luís Azevedo
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.210

6.  Prevalence and Outcomes of Patients Meeting Palliative Care Consultation Triggers in Neurological Intensive Care Units.

Authors:  Claire J Creutzfeldt; Hannah Wunsch; J Randall Curtis; May Hua
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.210

7.  The max-intracerebral hemorrhage score predicts long-term outcome of intracerebral hemorrhage.

Authors:  Yue Suo; Wei-Qi Chen; Yue-Song Pan; Yu-Jing Peng; Hong-Yi Yan; Xing-Quan Zhao; Li-Ping Liu; Yi-Long Wang; Gai-Fen Liu; Yong-Jun Wang
Journal:  CNS Neurosci Ther       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 5.243

8.  Get out of bed: immobility in the neurologic ICU.

Authors:  Claire J Creutzfeldt; Catherine L Hough
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Estimating and communicating prognosis in advanced neurologic disease.

Authors:  Robert G Holloway; Robert Gramling; Adam G Kelly
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 9.910

10.  DESTINY-S: attitudes of physicians toward disability and treatment in malignant MCA infarction.

Authors:  Hermann Neugebauer; Claire J Creutzfeldt; J Claude Hemphill; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.210

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.