PURPOSE: To assess preferences among individuals aged ≥80 years for a future hypothetical critical illness requiring life-sustaining treatments. METHODS: Observational cohort study of consecutive community-dwelling elderly individuals previously hospitalised in medical or surgical wards and of volunteers residing in nursing homes or assisted-living facilities. The participants were interviewed at their place of residence after viewing films of scenarios involving the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy after a period of invasive mechanical ventilation (RRT after IMV). Demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life data were collected. Participants chose among four responses regarding life-sustaining treatments: consent, refusal, no opinion, and letting the physicians decide. RESULTS: The sample size was 115 and the response rate 87 %. Mean participant age was 84.8 ± 3.5 years, 68 % were female, and 81 % and 71 % were independent for instrumental activities and activities of daily living, respectively. Refusal rates among the elderly were 27 % for NIV, 43 % for IMV, and 63 % for RRT (after IMV). Demographic characteristics associated with refusal were married status for NIV [relative risk (RR), 2.9; 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI), 1.5-5.8; p = 0.002] and female gender for IMV (RR, 2.4; 95 %CI, 1.2-4.5; p = 0.01) and RRT (after IMV) (RR, 2.7; 95 %CI, 1.4-5.2; p = 0.004). Quality of life was associated with choices regarding all three life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Independent elderly individuals were rather reluctant to accept life-sustaining treatments, especially IMV and RRT (after IMV). Their quality of life was among the determinants of their choices.
PURPOSE: To assess preferences among individuals aged ≥80 years for a future hypothetical critical illness requiring life-sustaining treatments. METHODS: Observational cohort study of consecutive community-dwelling elderly individuals previously hospitalised in medical or surgical wards and of volunteers residing in nursing homes or assisted-living facilities. The participants were interviewed at their place of residence after viewing films of scenarios involving the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy after a period of invasive mechanical ventilation (RRT after IMV). Demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life data were collected. Participants chose among four responses regarding life-sustaining treatments: consent, refusal, no opinion, and letting the physicians decide. RESULTS: The sample size was 115 and the response rate 87 %. Mean participant age was 84.8 ± 3.5 years, 68 % were female, and 81 % and 71 % were independent for instrumental activities and activities of daily living, respectively. Refusal rates among the elderly were 27 % for NIV, 43 % for IMV, and 63 % for RRT (after IMV). Demographic characteristics associated with refusal were married status for NIV [relative risk (RR), 2.9; 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI), 1.5-5.8; p = 0.002] and female gender for IMV (RR, 2.4; 95 %CI, 1.2-4.5; p = 0.01) and RRT (after IMV) (RR, 2.7; 95 %CI, 1.4-5.2; p = 0.004). Quality of life was associated with choices regarding all three life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Independent elderly individuals were rather reluctant to accept life-sustaining treatments, especially IMV and RRT (after IMV). Their quality of life was among the determinants of their choices.
Authors: A H van Mil; R C van Klink; C Huntjens; R G Westendorp; A M Stiggelbout; A E Meinders; A M Lagaay Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2000 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: R S Phillips; N S Wenger; J Teno; R K Oye; S Youngner; R Califf; P Layde; N Desbiens; A F Connors; J Lynn Journal: Am J Med Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: L E M Haas; Ilse van Beusekom; Diederik van Dijk; Marije E Hamaker; Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez; Dylan W de Lange; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Andrea Hill; Clare Ramsey; Peter Dodek; Jean Kozek; Randy Fransoo; Robert Fowler; Malcolm Doupe; Hubert Wong; Damon Scales; Allan Garland Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sean M Bagshaw; Neill K J Adhikari; Karen E A Burns; Jan O Friedrich; Josée Bouchard; Francois Lamontagne; Lauralyn A McIntrye; Jean-François Cailhier; Peter Dodek; Henry T Stelfox; Margaret Herridge; Stephen Lapinsky; John Muscedere; James Barton; Donald Griesdale; Mark Soth; Althea Ambosta; Gerald Lebovic; Ron Wald Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Elie Azoulay; Giuseppe Citerio; Jan Bakker; Matteo Bassetti; Dominique Benoit; Maurizio Cecconi; J Randall Curtis; Glenn Hernandez; Margaret Herridge; Samir Jaber; Michael Joannidis; Laurent Papazian; Mark Peters; Pierre Singer; Martin Smith; Marcio Soares; Antoni Torres; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-François Timsit Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: M Garrouste-Orgeas; A Tabah; A Vesin; F Philippart; A Kpodji; C Bruel; C Grégoire; A Max; J F Timsit; B Misset Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nadja Leder; Daniel Schwarzkopf; Konrad Reinhart; Otto W Witte; Rüüdiger Pfeifer; Christiane S Hartog Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.594