Article

The ETHICA study (part I): elderly's thoughts about intensive care unit admission for life-sustaining treatments

Medical-Surgical, Saint Joseph Hospital Network, 75014, Paris, France.
Intensive Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 7.21). 06/2013; 39(9). DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-2976-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT PURPOSE: To assess preferences among individuals aged ≥80 years for a future hypothetical critical illness requiring life-sustaining treatments. METHODS: Observational cohort study of consecutive community-dwelling elderly individuals previously hospitalised in medical or surgical wards and of volunteers residing in nursing homes or assisted-living facilities. The participants were interviewed at their place of residence after viewing films of scenarios involving the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy after a period of invasive mechanical ventilation (RRT after IMV). Demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life data were collected. Participants chose among four responses regarding life-sustaining treatments: consent, refusal, no opinion, and letting the physicians decide. RESULTS: The sample size was 115 and the response rate 87 %. Mean participant age was 84.8 ± 3.5 years, 68 % were female, and 81 % and 71 % were independent for instrumental activities and activities of daily living, respectively. Refusal rates among the elderly were 27 % for NIV, 43 % for IMV, and 63 % for RRT (after IMV). Demographic characteristics associated with refusal were married status for NIV [relative risk (RR), 2.9; 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI), 1.5-5.8; p = 0.002] and female gender for IMV (RR, 2.4; 95 %CI, 1.2-4.5; p = 0.01) and RRT (after IMV) (RR, 2.7; 95 %CI, 1.4-5.2; p = 0.004). Quality of life was associated with choices regarding all three life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Independent elderly individuals were rather reluctant to accept life-sustaining treatments, especially IMV and RRT (after IMV). Their quality of life was among the determinants of their choices.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Francois Philippart, May 16, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
200 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: L’absence de documentation formelle d’un bénéfice en termes de survie d’une hospitalisation en réanimation pour les personnes âgées (> 80 ans) peut en partie expliquer la grande hétérogénéité des pratiques. Dès lors, on peut observer une sur-utilisation des services de réanimation pour certaines personnes âgées et pour d’autres une sous-utilisation avec une perte de chance potentielle. Dans cette revue, nous avons successivement abordé la prise en charge pendant le séjour en réanimation, les résultats immédiats et à distance pour finalement aborder le sujet clé des modalités de la décision d’admission dans un service de réanimation. Le processus de sélection à l’entrée en réanimation doit être partagé avec le patient, sa famille et les différents intervenants médicaux. L’amélioration du pronostic des pathologies aiguës survenant chez les personnes âgées et justifiant une admission en réanimation requiert une meilleure connaissance des mécanismes physiopathologiques du sujet âgé, une approche pluridisciplinaire et une optimisation de l’ensemble des structures de prise en charge en aval du séjour en réanimation. Abstract There is no formal demonstration of a benefit of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for elderly patients. On the same hand, there is a large heterogeneity with over- but also under-use of ICU facilities. The decision to admit an elderly patient in ICU should be shared by the patient, his/her family, the ICU, but also other physicians involved in the care of the patient prior and after ICU stay. In order to improve the prognosis of elderly patients, we should work on pathophysiology, adopt a multidisciplinary approach, and probably adapt the structures (intermediate care units) and discharge location (geriatric units).
    Réanimation 01/2013; 23(S2):437-444. DOI:10.1007/s13546-013-0814-4
  • Source
    Intensive Care Medicine 06/2013; 39(9). DOI:10.1007/s00134-013-2968-y · 7.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To assess physician decisions about ICU admission for life-sustaining treatments (LSTs). METHODS: Observational simulation study of physician decisions for patients aged ≥80 years. Each patient was allocated at random to four physicians who made decisions based on actual bed availability and existence of an additional bed before and after obtaining information on patient preferences. The simulations involved non-invasive ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy after a period of IMV (RRT after IMV). RESULTS: The physician participation rate was 100/217 (46 %); males without religious beliefs predominated, and median ICU experience was 9 years. Among participants, 85.7, 78, and 62 % felt that NIV, IMV, or RRT (after IMV) was warranted, respectively. By logistic regression analysis, factors associated with admission were age <85 years, self-sufficiency, and bed availability for NIV and IMV. Factors associated with IMV were previous ICU stay (OR 0.29, 95 % CI 0.13-0.65, p = 0.01) and cancer (OR 0.23, 95 % CI 0.10-0.52, p = 0.003), and factors associated with RRT (after IMV) were living spouse (OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.04-3.97, p = 0.038) and respiratory disease (OR 0.42, 95 % CI 0.23-0.76, p = 0.004). Agreement among physicians was low for all LSTs. Knowledge of patient preferences changed physician decisions for 39.9, 56, and 57 % of patients who disagreed with the initial physician decisions for NIV, IMV, and RRT (after IMV) respectively. An additional bed increased admissions for NIV and IMV by 38.6 and 13.6 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physician decisions for elderly patients had low agreement and varied greatly with bed availability and knowledge of patient preferences.
    Intensive Care Medicine 06/2013; 39(9). DOI:10.1007/s00134-013-2977-x · 7.21 Impact Factor
Show more