Article

Treatment limitations at admission to intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand: prevalence, outcomes, and resource use*.

Department of Intensive CareThe Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Critical care medicine (Impact Factor: 6.37). 05/2012; 40(7):2082-9. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824ea045
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous studies have addressed patients in whom treatment is withheld or withdrawn after a period of intensive care unit management. However, no studies have investigated the epidemiology of patients with treatment limitations in place at the time of intensive care unit admission.
To report the epidemiology and outcome of patients with treatment limitations at intensive care unit admission and to identify characteristics associated with survival and discharge to home.
Retrospective database study using data from the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database.
Australian and New Zealand intensive care units.
One hundred eighty-seven thousand four hundred and one intensive care patients collected over a 3-yr period, 5,989 (3.2%) of whom had treatment limitations at admission to the intensive care unit.
Retrospective database study with no interventions. Data collected included patient characteristics, length of stay, mortality, and discharge destination. Mean intensive care unit bed days were used as a surrogate for resource consumption.
Between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009, 5,989 (3.2%) patients were reported to the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database who had treatment limitation orders at admission to intensive care unit. Mortality was 53% (95% confidence interval 51.7%-54.3%) compared with 9% (95% confidence interval 8.9%-9.1%) in patients admitted for full active management (p ≤ .001). Overall, 30% of patients with treatment limitations were discharged directly to their homes. Intensive care unit bed day usage was similar between the two groups. Within the treatment limitation group, younger patients, those with less comorbid diseases, less acute physiological disturbance, and those admitted following elective surgery, were more likely to survive and be discharged home. Admission diagnosis was an important determinant of outcome with intracranial or subarachnoid hemorrhage predicting a extremely high mortality.
Patients with treatment limitations on intensive care unit admission comprise approximately 2,000 patients per year in Australia and New Zealand. Despite such limitations, almost half of these patients survive their hospital admission and a third return directly to their home.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
67 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decisions to limit life-sustaining therapy (DLLST) in the ICU are used to uphold patients' autonomy, protect them from non-beneficial treatment and fairly distribute resources. The institution of these decisions is complex, with a variety of qualitative and quantitative data published. This review aims to summarize the main issues and review the contemporary research findings on this subject. DLLST are used in a variety of clinical and non-clinical situations, before and after ICU admission, and are not always part of end-of-life management. There are many dilemmas and barriers that beset their institution. Many ICU physicians feel inadequately trained to carry them out and they are frequently a source of conflict. A variety of strategies have been examined to improve their institution, including advanced directives, intensive communication strategies and family information leaflets, many of which have improved patient and family-centred outcomes. There are a number of uncertainties that beset the institution of DLLST in the ICU; however, a variety of research has improved our ability to understand and implement them. This review frames some of the dilemmas and discusses some of the procedural strategies that have been used to improve outcomes.
    Current opinion in critical care 12/2013; 19(6):624-9. · 2.67 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the association of phosphate concentration with key clinical outcomes in a heterogeneous cohort of critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study at a general intensive care unit (ICU) of an Australian university teaching hospital enrolling 2730 adult critically ill patients. RESULTS: We studied 10 504 phosphate measurements with a mean value of 1.17 mmol/L (measurements every 28.8 hours on average). Hyperphosphatemia (inorganic phosphate [iP] concentration > 1.4 mmol/L) occurred in 45% and hypophosphatemia (iP ≤ 0.6 mmol/L) in 20%. Among patients without any episodes of hyperphosphatemia, patients with at least 1 episode of hypophosphatemia had a higher ICU mortality than those without hypophosphatemia (P = .004). In addition, ICU nonsurvivors had lower minimum phosphate concentrations than did survivors (P = .009). Similar results were seen for hospital mortality. However, on multivariable logistic regression analysis, hypophosphatemia was not independently associated with ICU mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.10]; P = .24) and hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.89 [0.73-1.07]; P = .21). Even when different cutoff points were used for hypophosphatemia (iP ≤ 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, or 0.2 mmol/L), hypophosphatemia was not an independent risk factor for ICU and hospital morality. In addition, timing of onset and duration of hypophosphatemia were not independent risk factor for ICU and hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hypophosphatemia behaves like a general marker of illness severity and not as an independent predictor of ICU or in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients.
    Journal of critical care 12/2012; · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a new mortality prediction model (Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death [ANZROD]) for Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs) and compare its performance with the existing Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III-j. All ICU admissions from 2004 to 2009 were extracted from the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. Hospital mortality was modeled using logistic regression with training (two third) and validation (one third) data sets. Predictor variables included APACHE III score components, source of admission to ICU and hospital, lead time, elective surgery, treatment limitation, ventilation status, and APACHE III diagnoses. Model performance was assessed by standardized mortality ratio, Hosmer-Lemeshow C and H statistics, Brier score, Cox calibration regression, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration curves. There were 456605 patients available for model development and validation. Observed mortality was 11.3%. Performance measures (standardized mortality ratio, Hosmer-Lemeshow C and H statistics, and receiver operating characteristic curve) for the ANZROD and APACHE III-j model in the validation data set were 1.01, 104.9 and 111.4, and 0.902; 0.84, 1596.6 and 2087.3, and 0.885, respectively. The ANZROD has better calibration; discrimination compared with the APACHE III-j. Further research is required to validate performance over time and in specific subgroups of ICU population.
    Journal of critical care 09/2013; · 2.13 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
11 Downloads
Available from
Dec 19, 2013