C Denke1, U Jaschinski2, R Riessen3, S Bercker4, C Spies1, M Ragaller5, M Weiss6, K Dey7, A Michalsen8, J Briegel9, A Pohrt10, C L Sprung11, A Avidan11, C S Hartog12,13. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive, Care, University of Leipzig Medical Centre, Leipzig, Germany. 5. Technical University Dresden, Department, of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 6. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 7. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hospital of the Bundeswehr Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, Emergency, Medicine, and Pain Therapy, Konstanz Hospital, Konstanz, Germany. 9. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum München, Munich, Germany. 10. Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany. 11. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Hadassah Medical Organization and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. 12. Klinik Bavaria Kreischa, Kreischa, Germany. christiane.hartog@mailbox.org. 13. Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Campus Charité, Berlin, Germany. christiane.hartog@mailbox.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End-of-life care is common in German intensive care units (ICUs) but little is known about daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To study the practice of end-of-life care. METHODS: Prospectively planned, secondary analysis comprising the German subset of the worldwide Ethicus‑2 Study (2015-2016) including consecutive ICU patients with limitation of life-sustaining therapy or who died. RESULTS: Among 1092 (13.7%) of 7966 patients from 11 multidisciplinary ICUs, 967 (88.6%) had treatment limitations, 92 (8.4%) died with failed CPR, and 33 (3%) with brain death. Among patients with treatment limitations, 22.3% (216/967) patients were discharged alive from the ICU. More patients had treatments withdrawn than withheld (556 [57.5%] vs. 411 [42.5%], p < 0.001). Patients with treatment limitations were older (median 73 years [interquartile range (IQR) 61-80] vs. 68 years [IQR 54-77]) and more had mental decision-making capacity (12.9 vs. 0.8%), advance directives (28.6 vs. 11.2%), and information about treatment wishes (82.7 vs 33.3%, all p < 0.001). Physicians reported discussing treatment limitations with patients with mental decision-making capacity and families (91.3 and 82.6%, respectively). Patient wishes were unknown in 41.3% of patients. The major reason for decision-making was unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (34.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment limitations are common, based on information about patients' wishes and discussion between stakeholders, patients and families. However, our findings suggest that treatment preferences of nearly half the patients remain unknown which affects guidance for treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: End-of-life care is common in German intensive care units (ICUs) but little is known about daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To study the practice of end-of-life care. METHODS: Prospectively planned, secondary analysis comprising the German subset of the worldwide Ethicus‑2 Study (2015-2016) including consecutive ICU patients with limitation of life-sustaining therapy or who died. RESULTS: Among 1092 (13.7%) of 7966 patients from 11 multidisciplinary ICUs, 967 (88.6%) had treatment limitations, 92 (8.4%) died with failed CPR, and 33 (3%) with brain death. Among patients with treatment limitations, 22.3% (216/967) patients were discharged alive from the ICU. More patients had treatments withdrawn than withheld (556 [57.5%] vs. 411 [42.5%], p < 0.001). Patients with treatment limitations were older (median 73 years [interquartile range (IQR) 61-80] vs. 68 years [IQR 54-77]) and more had mental decision-making capacity (12.9 vs. 0.8%), advance directives (28.6 vs. 11.2%), and information about treatment wishes (82.7 vs 33.3%, all p < 0.001). Physicians reported discussing treatment limitations with patients with mental decision-making capacity and families (91.3 and 82.6%, respectively). Patient wishes were unknown in 41.3% of patients. The major reason for decision-making was unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (34.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment limitations are common, based on information about patients' wishes and discussion between stakeholders, patients and families. However, our findings suggest that treatment preferences of nearly half the patients remain unknown which affects guidance for treatment decisions.
Authors: Geraldine de Heer; Bernd Saugel; Barbara Sensen; Charlotte Rübsteck; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Stefan Kluge Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 5.594
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