Ann C Long1, Sarah Muni2, Patsy D Treece1, Ruth A Engelberg1, Elizabeth L Nielsen1, Annette L Fitzpatrick3,4, J Randall Curtis1. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 2. 2 EvergreenHealth Pulmonary Care , Kirkland, Washington. 3. 3 Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 4. 4 Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discussions about withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies often include family members of critically ill patients. These conversations should address essential components of the dying process, including expected time to death after withdrawal. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to aid physician communication about the dying process by identifying predictors of time to death after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis from a single-center, before-after evaluation of an intervention to improve palliative care. We studied 330 patients who died after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Predictors included patient demographics, laboratory, respiratory, and physiologic variables, and medication use. RESULTS: The median time to death for the entire cohort was 0.58 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 0.22-2.25 hours) after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Using Cox regression, independent predictors of shorter time to death included higher positive end-expiratory pressure (per 1 cm H2O hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.11); higher static pressure (per 1 cm H2O HR, 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.04); extubation prior to death (HR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.86); and presence of diabetes (HR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.25-2.44). Higher noninvasive mean arterial pressure predicted longer time to death (per 1 mmHg HR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid illness and key respiratory and physiologic parameters may inform physician predictions of time to death after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. An understanding of the predictors of time to death may facilitate discussions with family members of dying patients and improve communication about end-of-life care.
BACKGROUND: Discussions about withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies often include family members of critically illpatients. These conversations should address essential components of the dying process, including expected time to death after withdrawal. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to aid physician communication about the dying process by identifying predictors of time to death after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis from a single-center, before-after evaluation of an intervention to improve palliative care. We studied 330 patients who died after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Predictors included patient demographics, laboratory, respiratory, and physiologic variables, and medication use. RESULTS: The median time to death for the entire cohort was 0.58 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 0.22-2.25 hours) after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Using Cox regression, independent predictors of shorter time to death included higher positive end-expiratory pressure (per 1 cm H2O hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.11); higher static pressure (per 1 cm H2O HR, 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.04); extubation prior to death (HR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.86); and presence of diabetes (HR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.25-2.44). Higher noninvasive mean arterial pressure predicted longer time to death (per 1 mmHg HR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid illness and key respiratory and physiologic parameters may inform physician predictions of time to death after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. An understanding of the predictors of time to death may facilitate discussions with family members of dying patients and improve communication about end-of-life care.
Authors: Alejandro A Rabinstein; Alan H Yee; Jay Mandrekar; Jennifer E Fugate; Yorick J de Groot; Erwin J O Kompanje; Lori A Shutter; W David Freeman; Michael A Rubin; Eelco F M Wijdicks Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Patsy D Treece; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Lois Downey; Sarah E Shannon; Theresa Braungardt; Darrell Owens; Kenneth P Steinberg; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jentina Wind; Maarten G J Snoeijs; Cees A Brugman; Janneke Vervelde; Janharm Zwaveling; Walther N van Mook; Ernest L van Heurn Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Yorick J de Groot; Hester F Lingsma; Jan Bakker; Diederik A Gommers; Ewout Steyerberg; Erwin J O Kompanje Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Robert D Truog; Margaret L Campbell; J Randall Curtis; Curtis E Haas; John M Luce; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Cynda Hylton Rushton; David C Kaufman Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jorge Brieva; Nicole Coleman; Jeanette Lacey; Peter Harrigan; Terry J Lewin; Gregory L Carter Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Fábio Holanda Lacerda; Pedro Garcia Checoli; Carla Marchini Dias da Silva; Carlos Eduardo Brandão; Daniel Neves Forte; Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2020 Oct-Dec
Authors: Nathan B Scales; Christophe L Herry; Amanda van Beinum; Melanie L Hogue; Laura Hornby; Jason Shahin; Sonny Dhanani; Andrew J E Seely Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-04-07