Laura Pietiläinen1, Johanna Hästbacka2, Minna Bäcklund2, Ilkka Parviainen3, Ville Pettilä2, Matti Reinikainen4. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O. Box 100, 70029, Kuopio, Finland. laura.pietilainen@kuh.fi. 2. Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Intensive Care, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Department of Intensive Care, North Karelia Central Hospital, Joensuu, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the association between the premorbid functional status (PFS) and 1-year mortality and functional status of very old intensive care patients. METHODS: Using a nationwide quality registry, we retrieved data on patients treated in Finnish intensive care units (ICUs) during the period May 2012‒April 2013. Of 16,389 patients, 1827 (11.1%) were very old (aged 80 years or older). We defined a person with good functional status as someone independent in activities of daily living (ADL) and able to climb stairs without assistance; a person with poor functional status was defined as needing assistance for ADL or being unable to climb stairs. We adjusted for severity of illness and calculated the impact of PFS. RESULTS: Overall, hospital mortality was 21.3% and 1-year mortality was 38.2%. For emergency patients (73.5% of all), hospital mortality was 28% and 1-year mortality was 48%. The functional status at 1 year was comparable to the PFS in 78% of the survivors. PFS was poor for 43.3% of the patients. A poor PFS predicted an increased risk of in-hospital death, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.10), and of 1-year mortality, OR 2.18 (1.67-2.85). PFS data significantly improved the prediction of 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Of very old ICU patients, 62% were alive 1 year after ICU admission and 78% of the survivors had a functional status comparable to the premorbid situation. A poor PFS doubled the odds of death within a year. Knowledge of PFS improved the prediction of 1-year mortality.
PURPOSE: We assessed the association between the premorbid functional status (PFS) and 1-year mortality and functional status of very old intensive care patients. METHODS: Using a nationwide quality registry, we retrieved data on patients treated in Finnish intensive care units (ICUs) during the period May 2012‒April 2013. Of 16,389 patients, 1827 (11.1%) were very old (aged 80 years or older). We defined a person with good functional status as someone independent in activities of daily living (ADL) and able to climb stairs without assistance; a person with poor functional status was defined as needing assistance for ADL or being unable to climb stairs. We adjusted for severity of illness and calculated the impact of PFS. RESULTS: Overall, hospital mortality was 21.3% and 1-year mortality was 38.2%. For emergency patients (73.5% of all), hospital mortality was 28% and 1-year mortality was 48%. The functional status at 1 year was comparable to the PFS in 78% of the survivors. PFS was poor for 43.3% of the patients. A poor PFS predicted an increased risk of in-hospital death, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.10), and of 1-year mortality, OR 2.18 (1.67-2.85). PFS data significantly improved the prediction of 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Of very old ICU patients, 62% were alive 1 year after ICU admission and 78% of the survivors had a functional status comparable to the premorbid situation. A poor PFS doubled the odds of death within a year. Knowledge of PFS improved the prediction of 1-year mortality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Frailty; Functional status; ICU; Intensive care; Mortality; Very old
Authors: Sean M Bagshaw; H Thomas Stelfox; Jeffrey A Johnson; Robert C McDermid; Darryl B Rolfson; Ross T Tsuyuki; Quazi Ibrahim; Sumit R Majumdar Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Daren Heyland; Deborah Cook; Sean M Bagshaw; Allan Garland; Henry T Stelfox; Sangeeta Mehta; Peter Dodek; Jim Kutsogiannis; Karen Burns; John Muscedere; Alexis F Turgeon; Rob Fowler; Xuran Jiang; Andrew G Day Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: M S Nielsson; C F Christiansen; M B Johansen; B S Rasmussen; E Tønnesen; M Nørgaard Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: J L Vincent; A de Mendonça; F Cantraine; R Moreno; J Takala; P M Suter; C L Sprung; F Colardyn; S Blecher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: John Muscedere; Braden Waters; Aditya Varambally; Sean M Bagshaw; J Gordon Boyd; David Maslove; Stephanie Sibley; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Richard J Pugh; Amy Ellison; Kate Pye; Christian P Subbe; Chris M Thorpe; Nazir I Lone; Andrew Clegg Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Victor Wei-Che Shen; Che Yang; Li-Ling Lai; Ying-Ju Chen; Hsien-Hao Huang; Shih-Hung Tsai; Teh-Fu Hsu; David Hung-Tsang Yen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Wytske W Geense; Mark van den Boogaard; Marco A A Peters; Koen S Simons; Esther Ewalds; Hester Vermeulen; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Marieke Zegers Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Johannes Björkman; Päivi Laukkanen-Nevala; Anna Olkinuora; Ilkka Pulkkinen; Jouni Nurmi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 2.692