The influence of do-not-resuscitate status on the outcomes of patients undergoing emergency vascular operations

Advance care planning and goals of care discussions in perioperative care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is well established in general medical wards, but its implementation in anaesthesia and perioperative care presents unique challenges. Effective communication and shared decision-making regarding treatment limitations are essential to clarify care goals and provide timely, high-quality end-of-life care. Terminally ill patients with complex care needs can experience a higher risk of postoperative mortality during anaesthesia.

METHODS

This scoping review examines the literature describing when and how advance care planning has been studied in perioperative care, focusing on patient characteristics, the content of advance care planning discussions, and impact on patient outcomes. The study follows PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Articles were collected from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases, using search terms from MeSH and synonyms for anaesthesia, surgery and perioperative care, advance care planning, living wills or advance directives, goals of care and terminal care, resuscitation orders, shared decision-making, and palliative care discussions.

RESULTS

Advance care planning documentation varies across surgical specialties and settings, with higher rates in emergency and palliative surgery. Patient factors, such as age and comorbidities, impact completion of advance care planning. Structurally, the presence of interdisciplinary teams, increased decision-making aids, and structured discussions improve implementation. Barriers included a lack of consistency in terminology, poor timing of needed conversations, a lack of cultural sensitivities, and patient fears of abandonment and palliative care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required to determine the most appropriate and beneficial methods and outcomes for implementing advance care planning into perioperative and end-of-life care, ensuring appropriate, timely, and patient-oriented care delivery.

Cost analysis of limb salvage: comparing limb revascularisation and amputation in patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischaemia (CLTI) at University Hospital Limerick

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is increasing globally. An increase in PAD in an ageing population inevitably results in an increase in incidence of Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia (CLTI). Loss of a limb is a life-changing event with immeasurable cost to the individual, while the potential financial benefit of saving a limb is not well documented.

AIMS

The focus of this study was to estimate the cost associated with surgical interventions used in the treatment of CLTI compared with amputation.

METHODS

The cost to treat a CLTI diagnosis in 124 patients was analysed in an acute tertiary referral hospital over a 13-month study period. The analysis included staffing, medical devices used, number of blood components used and the length of stay. Statistical methods included descriptive statistical data and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The median cost, associated with length of stay, post-amputation and post-revascularisation (hybrid) was €61,313 [IQR = €44,417, €83,331] and €46,573 [IQR = €25,687, €58,554] respectively, p < 0.001. The total median cost for length of stay for amputees in an acute hospital, rehabilitation and a prosthetic limb was €88,820 [IQR = €74,486, €110,248]. The median surgical cost of an amputation was €2,064 [IQR = €1,342, €2,866], whilst the median surgical cost of a revascularisation procedure (hybrid) was €5,966 [IQR = €4,380, €7,723], p < 0.001, inclusive of total blood components transfused.

CONCLUSION

Revascularisation surgical interventions are more expensive than amputation, however, the length of stay, rehabilitation and prosthetic limb costs, for a patient undergoing a major limb amputation, is significantly more costly.

Amputation and advance care plans: An observational study exploring decision making and long-term outcomes in a vascular centre

BACKGROUND

Half of those undergoing major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease die within 1 year. Advance care planning reduces days in hospital and increases the chance of dying in a preferred place.

AIM

To investigate the prevalence and content of advance care planning for people having a lower limb amputation due to acute or chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetes. Secondary aims were to explore its association with mortality, and length of hospital stay.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational cohort study. The intervention was advance care planning.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients admitted to the South West England Major Arterial Centre between 1 January 2019 and 1 January 2021 who received unilateral or bilateral below, above, or through knee amputation due to acute or chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetes.

RESULTS

116 patients were included in the study. 20.7% (n = 24) died within 1 year. 40.5% (n = 47) had an advance care planning discussion of which all included cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions with few exploring other options. Patients who were more likely to have advance care planning discussions were ≥75 years (aOR = 5.58, 95%CI 1.56-20.0), female (aOR = 3.24, 95%CI 1.21-8.69), and had multimorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5, aOR = 2.97, 95%CI 1.11-7.92). Discussions occurred more often in the emergency pathway and were predominantly initiated by physicians. Advance care planning was associated with increased mortality (aHR = 2.63, 95%CI 1.01, 5.02) and longer hospital stay (aHR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.32-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high risk of death for all patients in the months following amputation, advance care planning occurred in fewer than half of people and mostly focused on resuscitation.

Unintended Consequences of Code Status in the Intensive Care Unit: What Happens After a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order Is Placed? A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Some clinicians suspect that patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders receive less aggressive care. Extrapolation from code status to goals of care could cause significant harm. This study asked the question: Do DNR orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) lead to a decrease in invasive interventions? Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of ICU patients from three teaching hospitals. All ICU patients were assessed for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were medical futility and death, comfort care, or ICU discharge <48 hours after DNR initiation. Five hundred thirty-six patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-five were included in the final analysis. Primary outcomes were occurrence of invasive interventions after DNR initiation-surgical operation, central line, ventilation, dialysis, or other procedure. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic administration, blood transfusion, mortality, and discharge location. Results: Patients with DNR orders underwent fewer surgical operations (14.5% vs. 31.1%, p = 0.002), but more central lines (42.1% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.009), ventilator use (49.0% vs. 18.9%, p < 0.001), and dialysis (20.0% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.002), compared with patients without DNR orders. Transfusions and antibiotic use decreased similarly over admission for both groups (transfusions: β = 1.25; p = 0.59; and antibiotics: β = 1.44; p = 0.27). Mortality and hospice discharges were higher for DNR patients (p < 0.001.). Conclusions: DNR status did not decrease the number of nonoperative interventions patients received as compared with full code counterparts. Although differences in populations existed, patients with DNR orders were likely to receive a similar number of invasive interventions. This finding suggests that providers do not wholesale limit these options for patients with code status limitations.

Advancing screening tool for hospice needs and end-of-life decision-making process in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Predicting mortality in the emergency department (ED) is imperative to guide palliative care and end-of-life decisions. However, the clinical usefulness of utilizing the existing screening tools still leaves something to be desired.

METHODS

We advanced the screening tool with the A-qCPR (Age, qSOFA (quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment), cancer, Performance Status Scale, and DNR (Do-Not-Resuscitate) risk score model for predicting one-year mortality in the emergency department of Taipei City Hospital of Taiwan with the potential of hospice need and evaluated its performance compared with the existing screening model. We adopted a large retrospective cohort in conjunction with in-time (the trained and the holdout validation cohort) for the development of the A-qCPR model and out-of-time validation sample for external validation and model robustness to variation with the calendar year.

RESULTS

A total of 10,474 patients were enrolled in the training cohort and 33,182 patients for external validation. Significant risk scores included age (0.05 per year), qSOFA ≥ 2 (4), Cancer (5), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score ≥ 2 (2), and DNR status (2). One-year mortality rates were 13.6% for low (score ≦ 3 points), 29.9% for medium (3 < Score ≦ 9 points), and 47.1% for high categories (Score > 9 points). The AUROC curve for the in-time validation sample was 0.76 (0.74-0.78). However, the corresponding figure was slightly shrunk to 0.69 (0.69-0.70) based on out-of-time validation. The accuracy with our newly developed A-qCPR model was better than those existing tools including 0.57 (0.56-0.57) by using SQ (surprise question), 0.54 (0.54-0.54) by using qSOFA, and 0.59 (0.59-0.59) by using ECOG performance status score. Applying the A-qCPR model to emergency departments since 2017 has led to a year-on-year increase in the proportion of patients or their families signing DNR documents, which had not been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The A-qCPR model is not only effective in predicting one-year mortality but also in identifying hospice needs. Advancing the screening tool that has been widely used for hospice in various scenarios is particularly helpful for facilitating the end-of-life decision-making process in the ED.

Role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease

Introduction

Cerebrovascular diseases are known to cause significant morbidity and mortality to the general population. In patients with cerebrovascular disease, prompt clinical evaluation and radiographic interpretation are both essential in optimizing clinical management and in triaging patients for critical and potentially life-saving neurosurgical interventions. With recent advancements in the domains of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), many AI and ML algorithms have been developed to further optimize the diagnosis and subsequent management of cerebrovascular disease. Despite such advances, further studies are needed to substantively evaluate both the diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of these techniques for their application in clinical practice. This review aims to analyze the current use of AI and MI algorithms in the diagnosis of, and clinical decision making for cerebrovascular disease, and to discuss both the feasibility and future applications of utilizing such algorithms.

Methods

We review the use of AI and ML algorithms to assist clinicians in the diagnosis and management of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial aneurysms, and arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). After identifying the most widely used algorithms, we provide a detailed analysis of the accuracy and effectiveness of these algorithms in practice.

Results

The incorporation of AI and ML algorithms for cerebrovascular patients has demonstrated improvements in time to detection of intracranial pathologies such as intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and infarcts. For ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, commercial AI software platforms such as RapidAI and Viz.AI have bene implemented into routine clinical practice at many stroke centers to expedite the detection of infarcts and ICH, respectively. Such algorithms and neural networks have also been analyzed for use in prognostication for such cerebrovascular pathologies. These include predicting outcomes for ischemic stroke patients, hematoma expansion, risk of aneurysm rupture, bleeding of AVMs, and in predicting outcomes following interventions such as risk of occlusion for various endovascular devices. Preliminary analyses have yielded promising sensitivities when AI and ML are used in concert with imaging modalities and a multidisciplinary team of health care providers.

Conclusion

The implementation of AI and ML algorithms to supplement clinical practice has conferred a high degree of accuracy, efficiency, and expedited detection in the clinical and radiographic evaluation and management of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, AVMs, and aneurysms. Such algorithms have been explored for further purposes of prognostication for these conditions, with promising preliminary results. Further studies should evaluate the longitudinal implementation of such techniques into hospital networks and residency programs to supplement clinical practice, and the extent to which these techniques improve patient care and clinical outcomes in the long-term.

Code status orders in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic created complex challenges regarding the timing and appropriateness of do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) and/or Do Not Intubate (DNI) code status orders. This paper sought to determine differences in utilization of DNACPR and/or DNI orders during different time periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, including prevalence, predictors, timing, and outcomes associated with having a documented DNACPR and/or DNI order in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at two hospitals located in the Midwest. DNACPR code status orders including, DNI orders, demographics, labs, COVID-19 treatments, clinical interventions during hospitalization, and outcome measures including mortality, discharge disposition, and hospice utilization were collected. Patients were divided into two time periods (early and late) by timing of hospitalization during the first wave of the pandemic (March-October 2020).

Results

Among 1375 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 19% (n = 258) of all patients had a documented DNACPR and/or DNI order. In multivariable analysis, age (older) p =< 0.01, OR 1.12 and hospitalization early in the pandemic p = 0.01, OR 2.08, were associated with having a DNACPR order. Median day from DNACPR order to death varied between cohorts p => 0.01 (early cohort 5 days versus late cohort 2 days). In-hospital mortality did not differ between cohorts among patients with DNACPR orders, p = 0.80.

Conclusions

There was a higher prevalence of DNACPR and/or DNI orders and these orders were written earlier in the hospital course for patients hospitalized early in the pandemic versus later despite similarities in clinical characteristics and medical interventions. Changes in clinical care between cohorts may be due to fear of resource shortages and changes in knowledge about COVID-19.

Prevalence, Management, and Outcomes Related to Preoperative Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) in an Adult Surgical Population: Preoperative MOLST and Code Status Discussions

OBJECTIVE

To determine prevalence of documented preoperative code status discussions and postoperative outcomes (specifically mortality, readmission, and discharge disposition) of patients with completed MOLST forms before surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A MOLST form documents patient care preference regarding treatment limitations. When considering surgery in these patients, preoperative discussion is necessary to ensure concordance of care. Little is known about prevalence of these discussions and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted consisting of all patients having surgery during a 1-year period at a tertiary care academic center in Boston, Massachusetts.

RESULTS

Among 21,787 surgical patients meeting inclusion criteria, 402 (1.8%) patients had preoperative MOLST. Within the MOLST, 224 (55.7%) patients had chosen to limit cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 214 (53.2%) had chosen to limit intubation and mechanical ventilation. Code status discussion was documented presurgery in 169 (42.0%) patients with MOLST. Surgery was elective or nonurgent for 362 (90%), and median length of stay (Q1, Q3) was 5.1 days (1.9, 9.9). The minority of patients with preoperative MOLST were discharged home [169 (42%), and 103 (25.6%) patients were readmitted within 30 days. Patients with preoperative MOLST had a 30-day mortality of 9.2% (37 patients) and cumulative 90-day mortality of 14.9% (60 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of surgical patients with preoperative MOLST have documented code status discussions before surgery. Given their high risk of postoperative mortality and the diversity of preferences found in MOLST, thoughtful discussion before surgery is critical to ensure concordant perioperative care.

Exploring Factors Associated With Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis Within Surgical Groups

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiologists caring for patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders may have ethical concerns because of their resuscitative wishes and may have clinical concerns because of their known increased risk of morbidity/mortality. Patient heterogeneity and/or emphasis on mortality outcomes make previous studies among patients with DNR orders difficult to interpret. We sought to explore factors associated with morbidity and mortality among patients with DNR orders, which were stratified by surgical subgroups.

METHODS

Exploratory retrospective cohort study in adult patients undergoing prespecified colorectal, vascular, and orthopedic surgeries was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File data from 2010 to 2013. Among patients with preoperative DNR orders (ie, active DNR order written in the patient's chart before surgery), factors associated with 30-day mortality, increased length of stay, and inpatient death were determined via penalized regression. Unadjusted and adjusted estimates for selected variables are presented.

RESULTS

After selection as above, 211,420 patients underwent prespecified procedures, and of those, 2755 (1.3%) had pre-existing DNR orders and met above selection to address morbidity/mortality aims. By specialty, of these patients with a preoperative DNR, 1149 underwent colorectal, 870 vascular, and 736 orthopedic surgery. Across groups, 36.2% were male and had a mean age 79.9 years (range 21-90). The 30-day mortality was 15.4%-27.2% and median length of stay was 6-12 days. Death at discharge was 7.0%, 13.1%, and 23.0% in orthopedics, vascular, and colorectal patients with a DNR, respectively. The strongest factors associated with increased odds of 30-day mortality were preoperative septic shock in colorectal patients, preoperative ascites in vascular patients, and any requirement of mechanical ventilation at admission in orthopedic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DNR orders undergoing common surgical procedures, the association of characteristics with morbidity and mortality varies in both direction and magnitude. The DNR order itself should not be the defining measure of risk.

A-qCPR risk score screening model for predicting 1-year mortality associated with hospice and palliative care in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Evaluating the need for palliative care and predicting its mortality play important roles in the emergency department.

AIM

We developed a screening model for predicting 1-year mortality.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify risk factors associated with 1-year mortality. Our risk scores based on these significant risk factors were then developed. Its predictive validity performance was evaluated using area under receiving operating characteristic analysis and leave-one-out cross-validation.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 15 years or older were enrolled from June 2015 to May 2016 in the emergency department.

RESULTS

We identified five independent risk factors, each of which was assigned a number of points proportional to its estimated regression coefficient: age (0.05 points per year), qSOFA ⩾ 2 (1), Cancer (4), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score ⩾ 2 (2), and Do-Not-Resuscitate status (3). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of our screening tool given the cutoff larger than 3 points were 0.99 (0.98-0.99), 0.31 (0.29-0.32), 0.26 (0.24-0.27), and 0.99 (0.98-1.00), respectively. Those with screening scores larger than 9 points corresponding to 64.0% (60.0-67.9%) of 1-year mortality were prioritized for consultation and communication. The area under the receiving operating characteristic curves for the point system was 0.84 (0.83-0.85) for the cross-validation model.

CONCLUSIONS

A-qCPR risk scores provide a good screening tool for assessing patient prognosis. Routine screening for end-of-life using this tool plays an important role in early and efficient physician-patient communications regarding hospice and palliative needs in the emergency department.

Perceptions of ICU Care Following Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A Military Perspective

Although do-not-resuscitate orders only prohibit cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest, the common initiation of this code status in the context of end-of-life care may lead providers to draw premature conclusions about other goals of care. The aim of this study is to identify concerns regarding care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate orders within the Department of Defense and compare differences in perceptions between members of the critical care team.

DESIGN

A cross sectional observational study was conducted.

SETTING

This study took place in the setting of critical care within the Department of Defense.

SUBJECTS

All members of the Uniformed Services Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were invited to participate.

INTERVENTIONS

A validated 31-question survey exploring the perceptions of care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate status was distributed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Exploratory factor analysis was used to categorically group survey questions, and average factor scores were compared between respondent groups using t tests. Responses to individual questions were also analyzed between comparison groups using Fisher exact tests. Factor analysis revealed no significant differences between respondents of different training backgrounds; however, those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to agree that active treatment would be pursued (p = 0.024) and that trust and communication would be maintained (p = 0.005). Although 38% of all respondents worry that quality of care will decrease, 93% agree that life-prolonging treatments should be offered. About a third of providers wrongly believed that a do-not-resuscitate order must be reversed prior to an operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although providers across training backgrounds held similar concerns about decreased care quality in the ICU, there is wide belief that the routine and noninvasive interventions are offered as indicated. Those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to believe that standards of care continued to be met after code status change.

The effect of patient code status on surgical resident decision making: A national survey of general surgery residents

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have demonstrated that, compared with their full code counterparts, patients with do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate status have higher in-hospital and postdischarge mortality than predicted by clinical characteristics alone. We sought to determine whether patient code status affects surgical resident decision making.

METHODS

We created an online survey that consisted of 4 vignettes, followed by 10 questions regarding decisions on possible diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. All program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery residencies were randomized to receive 1 of 2 survey versions that differed only in the code status of the patients described, with requests to distribute the survey to their residents. Responses to each question were based on a Likert scale.

RESULTS

A total of 194 residents completed the survey, 51% of whom were women, and all years of surgical residency were represented. In all vignettes, patient code status influenced perioperative medical decisions, ranging from initiation of dialysis to intensive care unit transfer. In 2 vignettes, it affected decisions to proceed with indicated emergency operations.

CONCLUSION

When presented with patient scenarios pertaining to clinical decision making, surgical residents tend to assume that patients with a do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate code status would prefer to receive less aggressive care overall. As a result, the delivery of appropriate surgical care may be improperly limited unless a patient's goals of care are explicitly stated. It is important for surgical residents to understand that a do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate code status should not be interpreted as a "do-not-treat" status.

Global Vascular Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

GUIDELINE SUMMARY

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.

Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.

Do-Not-Resuscitate status as an independent risk factor for patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture

AIM

To determine morbidity and mortality in hip fracture patients and also to assess for any independent associations between Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) status and increased post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgical repair of hip fractures.

METHODS

We conducted a propensity score matched retrospective analysis using de-identified data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP) for all patients undergoing hip fracture surgery over a 7 year period in hospitals across the United States enrolled in the ACS NSQIP with and without DNR status. We measured patient demographics including DNR status, co-morbidities, frailty and functional baseline, surgical and anaesthetic procedure data, post-operative morbidity/complications, length of stay, discharge destination and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 9218 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 13.6% had a DNR status, 86.4% did not. Mortality was higher in the DNR compared to the non-DNR group, at 15.3% vs 8.1% and propensity score matched multivariable analysis demonstrated that DNR status was independently associated with mortality (OR = 2.04, 95%CI: 1.46-2.86, P < 0.001). Additionally, analysis of the propensity score matched cohort demonstrated that DNR status was associated with a significant, but very small increased likelihood of post-operative complications (0.53 vs 0.43 complications per episode; OR = 1.21; 95%CI: 1.04-1.41, P = 0.004). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and unplanned reintubation were significantly less likely in patients with DNR status.

CONCLUSION

While DNR status patients had higher rates of post-operative complications and mortality, DNR status itself was not otherwise associated with increased morbidity. DNR status appears to increase 30-d mortality via ceilings of care in keeping with a DNR status, including withholding reintubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Do-Not-Resuscitate Status Is Associated With Increased Mortality But Not Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders instruct medical personnel to forego cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, but they do not preclude surgical management. Several studies have reported that DNR status is an independent predictor of 30-day mortality; however, the etiology of increased mortality remains unclear. We hypothesized that DNR patients would demonstrate increased postoperative mortality, but not morbidity, relative to non-DNR patients undergoing the same procedures.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for 2007-2013, we performed a retrospective analysis to compare DNR and non-DNR cohorts matched by the most common procedures performed in DNR patients. We employed univariable and multivariable logistic regression to characterize patterns of care in the perioperative period as well as identify independent risk factors for increased mortality and assess for the presence of "failure to rescue."

RESULTS

The most common procedures performed on DNR patients were emergent and centered on immediate symptom relief. When adjusting for preoperative factors, DNR patients were still found to have increased incidence of postoperative mortality (odds ratio 2.54 [2.29-2.82], P < .001) but not postoperative morbidity at 30 days. In addition, cardiopulmonary resuscitative measures and unplanned intubation were found to be less frequent in the DNR cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that increased mortality is the result of adherence to goals of care rather than "failure to rescue."