Association of Do-Not-Resuscitate Patient Case Mix With Publicly Reported Risk-Standardized Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates

Utilization of Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Older Adults During COVID-19 Surges in 2020

Background: Reports of poor outcomes among older adults with COVID-19 may have changed patient perceptions of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders or caused providers to pressure older adults into accepting DNR orders to conserve resources. Objective: We determined early-DNR utilization during COVID-19 surges compared with nonsurge periods among nonsurgical adults ≥75 and its connection to hospital mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults ≥75 years using the California Patient Discharge Database 2020. The primary outcome was early-DNR utilization. Control cohorts included nonsurgical adults <75 years in 2020 and nonsurgical adults ≥75 in 2019. Multiple causal inference methods were used to address measured and unmeasured confounding. Results: A total of 487,955 adults ≥75 years were identified, with 233,678 admitted during COVID-19 surges. Older adults admitted during surges had higher rates of early-DNR orders (30.1% vs. 29.4%, absolute risk differences = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-1.0) even after adjusting for patient case-mix (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04). Patients with early-DNR orders experienced higher hospital mortality (15.5% vs. 4.8%, aOR = 3.96, 95% CI: 3.85-4.06). Difference-in-difference analyses demonstrated that adults <75 years in 2020 and adults ≥75 years in 2019 did not experience variation in early-DNR utilization. Conclusions: Older adults had slightly higher rates of early-DNR orders during COVID-19 surges compared with nonsurge periods. While the difference in early-DNR utilization was small, it was linked to higher odds of death. The increase in early-DNR use only during COVID-19 surges and only among older adults may reflect changes in patient preferences or increased pressure on older adults stemming from provider fears of rationing during COVID-19 surges.

Palliative Care Use in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Do-Not-Resuscitate Status From a Nationwide Inpatient Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the predictors, treatments, and outcomes of the use of palliative care in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who had a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sampling database for 2015-2018, we examined the predictors, in-hospital procedures, and outcomes of palliative care recipients among patients with AMI who had a DNR order.

RESULTS

We identified 339,270 admissions with AMI that had a DNR order, including patients who received palliative care (n=113,215 [33.4%]). Compared with patients who did not receive palliative care, these patients were more frequently younger (median age, 81 vs 83 years; P<.001), were less likely to be female (50.9% [57,626 of 113,215] vs 54.7% [123,652 of 226,055]; P<.001), and were more likely to present with cardiac arrest (11.6% [13,133 of 113,215] vs 6.9% [15,598 of 226,055]; P<.001). Patients were more likely to receive palliative care at a large (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.50) or teaching (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 2.04 to 2.16) hospitals compared with small or rural ones. Patients receiving palliative care were less likely to be treated invasively, with reduced rates of invasive coronary angiography (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.47) and percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.48), and were more likely to die in the hospital (52.4% [59,325 of 113,215] vs 22.9% [51,766 of 226,055]).

CONCLUSION

In patients who had a DNR status and were hospitalized and received a diagnosis of AMI, only one-third received palliative care.

State and Government Administrative Databases: Medicare, National Inpatient Sample (NIS), and State Inpatient Databases (SID) Programs

The availability of large state and federally run administrative health-care databases provides potentially comprehensive population-wide information that can dramatically impact both medical and health-policy decision-making. Specific opportunities and important limitations exist with all administrative databases based on what information is collected and how reliably specific data elements are reported. Access to patient identifiable-level information can be critical for certain long-term outcome studies but can be difficult (although not impossible) due to patient privacy protections, while more easily available de-identified information can provide important insights that may be more than sufficient for some short-term operative or in-hospital outcome questions. The first section of this paper by Sarah K. Meier and Benjamin D. Pollock discusses Medicare and the different data files available to health-care researchers. They describe what is and is not generally available from even the most granular Medicare Standard Analytic Files, and provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Medicare administrative data as well as the resulting best and inappropriate uses of these data. In the second section, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and complementary State Inpatient Database programs are reviewed by Steven M. Kurtz and Edmund Lau, with insights into the origins of these programs, the data elements that are recorded relating to the operative procedure and hospital stay, and examples of the types of studies that optimally utilize these data sources. They also detail the limitations of these databases and identify studies that they are not well-suited for, especially those involving linkage or longitudinal studies over time. Both sections provide useful guidance on the best uses and pitfalls related to these important large representative national administrative data sources.

Treatment intensity and mortality among COVID-19 patients with dementia: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID-19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in-hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%-20%, or high >20% ACP rates).

RESULTS

Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia-biased ACP billing practices (risk-adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk-adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference-sensitive" care for COVID-19.

Predictors, Treatments, and Outcomes of Do-Not-Resuscitate Status in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients (from a Nationwide Inpatient Cohort Study)

Little is known about how frequently do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are placed in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the types of patients in which they are placed, treatment strategies or clinical outcomes of such patients. Using the United States (US) National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2015 to 2018, we identified 2,767,549 admissions that were admitted to US hospitals and during the hospitalization received a principle diagnosis of AMI, of which 339,270 (12.3%) patients had a DNR order (instigated both preadmission and during in-hospital stay). Patients with a DNR status were older (median age 83 vs 65, p < 0.001), more likely to be female (53.4% vs 39.3%, p < 0.001) and White (81.0% vs 73.3%, p < 0.001). Predictors of DNR status included comorbidities such as heart failure (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.45 to 1.48), dementia (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 2.50 to 2.55), and cancer. Patients with a DNR order were less likely to undergo invasive management or be discharged home (13.5% vs 52.8%), with only 1/3 receiving palliative consultation. In hospital mortality (32.7% vs 4.6%, p < 0.001) and MACCE (37.1% vs 8.8%, p < 0.001) were higher in the DNR group. Factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with a DNR order included a STEMI presentation (OR: 2.90, 95% CI: 2.84 to 2.96) and being of Black (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.33), Hispanic (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.32 to 1.41) or Asian/Pacific Islander (OR: 1.56, 95% CI:1.49-race. In conclusion, AMI patients with a DNR status were older, multimorbid, less likely to receive invasive management, with only one third of patients with DNR status referred for palliative care.

Contraindications to the Initiation of Veno-Venous ECMO for Severe Acute Respiratory Failure in Adults: A Systematic Review and Practical Approach Based on the Current Literature

(1) Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used for acute respiratory failure with few absolute but many relative contraindications. The provider in charge often has a difficult time weighing indications and contraindications to anticipate if the patient will benefit from this treatment, a decision that often decides life and death for the patient. To assist in this process in coming to a good evidence-based decision, we reviewed the available literature. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review through a literature search of the MEDLINE database of former and current absolute and relative contraindications to the initiation of ECMO treatment. (3) Results: The following relative and absolute contraindications were identified in the literature: absolute-refusal of the use of extracorporeal techniques by the patient, advanced stage of cancer, fatal intracerebral hemorrhage/cerebral herniation/intractable intracranial hypertension, irreversible destruction of the lung parenchyma without the possibility of transplantation, and contraindications to lung transplantation; relative-advanced age, immunosuppressed patients/pharmacological immunosuppression, injurious ventilator settings > 7 days, right-heart failure, hematologic malignancies, especially bone marrow transplantation and graft-versus-host disease, SAPS II score ≥ 60 points, SOFA score > 12 points, PRESERVE score ≥ 5 points, RESP score ≤ -2 points, PRESET score ≥ 6 points, and "do not attempt resuscitation" order (DN(A)R status). (4) Conclusions: We provide a simple-to-follow algorithm that incorporates absolute and relative contraindications to the initiation of ECMO treatment. This algorithm attempts to weigh pros and cons regarding the benefit for an individual patient and hopefully assists caregivers to make better, informed decisions.