Erin S DeMartino1, Nicholas A Braus2, Daniel P Sulmasy3, J Kyle Bohman4, John M Stulak5, Pramod K Guru6, Kayla R Fuechtmann7, Nausheen Singh8, Gregory J Schears4, Paul S Mueller9. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: DeMartino.Erin@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 6. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. 7. Augsburg College, Minneapolis, MN. 8. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 9. Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. RESULTS: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. CONCLUSION: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. RESULTS: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. CONCLUSION: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.
Authors: Julia M Carlson; Eric Etchill; Glenn Whitman; Bo Soo Kim; Chun Woo Choi; Joseph E Tonna; Romergryko Geocadin; Sung-Min Cho Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Gina M Piscitello; Rene S Bermea; John W Stokes; Whitney D Gannon; Anthony J Kanelidis; Megan Konopka; Claire Shappell; Laura K Frye; Patrick G Lyons; Mark Siegler; William F Parker Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Julia M Carlson; Eric W Etchill; Clare Angeli G Enriquez; Anna Peeler; Glenn J Whitman; Chun Woo Choi; Romergryko G Geocadin; Sung-Min Cho Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Andrew M Courtwright; Kim S Erler; Julia I Bandini; Mary Zwirner; M Cornelia Cremens; Thomas H McCoy; Ellen M Robinson; Emily Rubin Journal: J Bioeth Inq Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Bernadine Dao; Julian Savulescu; Jacky Y Suen; John F Fraser; Dominic J C Wilkinson Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Daniel Drewniak; Giovanna Brandi; Philipp Karl Buehler; Peter Steiger; Niels Hagenbuch; Sabine Stamm-Balderjahn; Liane Schenk; Ana Rosca; Tanja Krones Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10-23 Impact factor: 2.583