Timothy J Fendler1, John A Spertus1, Kevin F Kennedy1, Lena M Chen2, Sarah M Perman3, Paul S Chan1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: After patients survive an in-hospital cardiac arrest, discussions should occur about prognosis and preferences for future resuscitative efforts. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients' decisions for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders after a successful resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest are aligned with their expected prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 26,327 patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in-hospital cardiac arrest between April 2006 and September 2012 at 406 US hospitals. Using a previously validated prognostic tool, each patient's likelihood of favorable neurological survival (ie, without severe neurological disability) was calculated. The proportion of patients with DNR orders within each prognosis score decile and the association between DNR status and actual favorable neurological survival were examined. EXPOSURES: Do-not-resuscitate orders within 12 hours of ROSC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Likelihood of favorable neurological survival. RESULTS: Overall, 5944 (22.6% [95% CI, 22.1%-23.1%]) patients had DNR orders within 12 hours of ROSC. This group was older and had higher rates of comorbidities (all P < .05) than patients without DNR orders. Among patients with the best prognosis (decile 1), 7.1% (95% CI, 6.1%-8.1%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate of favorable neurological survival was 64.7% (95% CI, 62.8%-66.6%). Among patients with the worst expected prognosis (decile 10), 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-37.8%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate for favorable neurological survival was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.7%) (P for both trends <.001). This pattern was similar when DNR orders were redefined as within 24 hours, 72 hours, and 5 days of ROSC. The actual rate of favorable neurological survival was higher for patients without DNR orders (30.5% [95% CI, 29.9%-31.1%]) than it was for those with DNR orders (1.8% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.0%]). This pattern of lower survival among patients with DNR orders was seen in every decile of expected prognosis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although DNR orders after in-hospital cardiac arrest were generally aligned with patients' likelihood of favorable neurological survival, only one-third of patients with the worst prognosis had DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders had lower survival than those without DNR orders, including those with the best prognosis.
IMPORTANCE: After patients survive an in-hospital cardiac arrest, discussions should occur about prognosis and preferences for future resuscitative efforts. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients' decisions for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders after a successful resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest are aligned with their expected prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 26,327 patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in-hospital cardiac arrest between April 2006 and September 2012 at 406 US hospitals. Using a previously validated prognostic tool, each patient's likelihood of favorable neurological survival (ie, without severe neurological disability) was calculated. The proportion of patients with DNR orders within each prognosis score decile and the association between DNR status and actual favorable neurological survival were examined. EXPOSURES: Do-not-resuscitate orders within 12 hours of ROSC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Likelihood of favorable neurological survival. RESULTS: Overall, 5944 (22.6% [95% CI, 22.1%-23.1%]) patients had DNR orders within 12 hours of ROSC. This group was older and had higher rates of comorbidities (all P < .05) than patients without DNR orders. Among patients with the best prognosis (decile 1), 7.1% (95% CI, 6.1%-8.1%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate of favorable neurological survival was 64.7% (95% CI, 62.8%-66.6%). Among patients with the worst expected prognosis (decile 10), 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-37.8%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate for favorable neurological survival was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.7%) (P for both trends <.001). This pattern was similar when DNR orders were redefined as within 24 hours, 72 hours, and 5 days of ROSC. The actual rate of favorable neurological survival was higher for patients without DNR orders (30.5% [95% CI, 29.9%-31.1%]) than it was for those with DNR orders (1.8% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.0%]). This pattern of lower survival among patients with DNR orders was seen in every decile of expected prognosis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although DNR orders after in-hospital cardiac arrest were generally aligned with patients' likelihood of favorable neurological survival, only one-third of patients with the worst prognosis had DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders had lower survival than those without DNR orders, including those with the best prognosis.
Authors: Paul S Chan; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz; Robert A Berg; Yan Li; Comilla Sasson; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-06-25
Authors: R O Cummins; D Chamberlain; M F Hazinski; V Nadkarni; W Kloeck; E Kramer; L Becker; C Robertson; R Koster; A Zaritsky; L Bossaert; J P Ornato; V Callanan; M Allen; P Steen; B Connolly; A Sanders; A Idris; S Cobbe Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-04-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul S Chan; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz; Lesley H Curtis; Yan Li; Bradley G Hammill; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-10-28
Authors: Paul S Chan; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Bradley G Hammill; Lesley H Curtis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Saket Girotra; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Paul S Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey T Bruckel; Sandra L Wong; Paul S Chan; Steven M Bradley; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Purav Mody; Ambarish Pandey; Arthur S Slutsky; Matthew W Segar; Alex Kiss; Paul Dorian; Janet Parsons; Damon C Scales; Valeria E Rac; Sheldon Cheskes; Arlene S Bierman; Beth L Abramson; Sara Gray; Rob A Fowler; Katie N Dainty; Ahamed H Idris; Laurie Morrison Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peggy L Nguyen; Laith Alreshaid; Roy A Poblete; Geoffrey Konye; Jonathan Marehbian; Gene Sung Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Michael C Kontos; Michael R Gunderson; Jessica K Zegre-Hemsey; David C Lange; William J French; Timothy D Henry; James J McCarthy; Claire Corbett; Alice K Jacobs; James G Jollis; Steven V Manoukian; Robert E Suter; David T Travis; J Lee Garvey Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Sarah M Perman; Brenda L Beaty; Stacie L Daugherty; Edward P Havranek; Jason S Haukoos; Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga; Steven M Bradley; Timothy J Fendler; Paul S Chan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Richard T Carrick; Jinny G Park; Hannah L McGinnes; Christine Lundquist; Kristen D Brown; W Adam Janes; Benjamin S Wessler; David M Kent Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 5.501