Literature DB >> 9468160

Withdrawal and withholding of life support in the intensive care unit: a comparison of teaching and community hospitals. The Southwestern Ontario Critical Care Research Network.

S P Keenan1, K D Busche, L M Chen, R Esmail, K J Inman, W J Sibbald.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of withdrawal or withholding of life support (WD/WHLS), and to identify similarities and differences in the process of the withdrawal of life support (WDLS) between teaching and community hospitals' intensive care units (ICUs).
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, with some data obtained by retrospective chart review.
SETTING: The ICUs of three teaching hospitals and six community hospitals. PATIENTS: All patients who died in these nine ICUs over a 6-mo period.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on admitting diagnosis, cause of death, mode of death (death despite active treatment, withdrawal or withholding of life support), those initiating and involved in WDLS, and modalities of life support withdrawn were gathered for patients dying in the ICU over a 6-mo period. One hundred sixty patients in community hospitals and 292 in teaching hospitals died in their respective ICUs over the 6-mo period. We found a difference in the distribution of mode of death between community hospitals and teaching hospitals, resulting from a greater proportion of patients dying as a result of withholding life support in community hospitals (11.9% vs. 3.8% withheld, respectively, p = .004). Among the six community hospitals and three teaching hospitals, we found a difference in the proportion of patients dying despite active treatment compared with those dying as a result of WD/WHLS (p = .042 and p = .044, respectively). Initiation of WDLS by physicians was more frequent at teaching hospitals (81% vs. 61%, p = .0005), while families more commonly initiated WDLS at community hospitals (34% vs. 19%, p = .005). A greater proportion of patients in teaching hospitals were receiving mechanical ventilation (99% vs. 89%) and vasopressors (76% vs. 65%) before WDLS. Similar proportions had mechanical ventilation withdrawn (68% and 74%, community hospitals and teaching hospitals, respectively), while there was a trend for fewer patients in community hospitals to have vasopressors withdrawn (56% vs. 70%, p = .082). The time to death after WDLS had begun was longer in community hospitals compared with teaching hospitals (0.74 +/- 1.38 days vs. 0.27 +/- 0.79 [SD] days, p = .0028).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of WD/WHLS was similar in community hospitals and teaching hospitals; however, withholding of life support was more common in community hospitals. The process of WDLS appears to differ between community hospitals and teaching hospitals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9468160     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199802000-00018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  17 in total

Review 1.  [Ethical aspects in end-of-life care].

Authors:  F Nauck
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 2.  Global variability in withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit: a systematic review.

Authors:  N M Mark; S G Rayner; N J Lee; J R Curtis
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Factors that contribute to physician variability in decisions to limit life support in the ICU: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Michael E Wilson; Lori M Rhudy; Beth A Ballinger; Ann N Tescher; Brian W Pickering; Ognjen Gajic
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  [Saving life and permitting death. Decision conflicts in intensive medicine].

Authors:  F Salomon
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Life support in the intensive care unit: a qualitative investigation of technological purposes. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.

Authors:  D J Cook; M Giacomini; N Johnson; D Willms
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-11-02       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Deciding in the dark: advance directives and continuation of treatment in chronic critical illness.

Authors:  Sharon L Camhi; Alice F Mercado; R Sean Morrison; Qingling Du; David M Platt; Gary I August; Judith E Nelson
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Reasons, considerations, difficulties and documentation of end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units: the ETHICUS Study.

Authors:  Charles L Sprung; Thomas Woodcock; Peter Sjokvist; Bara Ricou; Hans-Henrik Bulow; Anne Lippert; Paulo Maia; Simon Cohen; Mario Baras; Seppo Hovilehto; Didier Ledoux; Dermot Phelan; Elisabet Wennberg; Wolfgang Schobersberger
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  End-of-life practices in 282 intensive care units: data from the SAPS 3 database.

Authors:  Elie Azoulay; Barbara Metnitz; Charles L Sprung; Jean-François Timsit; François Lemaire; Peter Bauer; Benoît Schlemmer; Rui Moreno; Philipp Metnitz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Profiles of neurological outcome prediction among intensivists.

Authors:  Eric Racine; Marie-Josée Dion; Christine A C Wijman; Judy Illes; Maarten G Lansberg
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.210

10.  The impact of patient preferences on physician decisions in the ICU: still much to learn.

Authors:  William J Ehlenbach
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.