Effect of Timing of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders on the Clinical Outcome of Critically Ill Patients

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with do-not-resuscitate and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment in a medical intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In the intensive care unit (ICU), we may encounter patients who have completed a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) or a Physician Orders to Stop Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) document. However, the characteristics of ICU patients who choose DNR/POLST are not well understood.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the electronic medical records of 577 patients admitted to a medical ICU from October 2019 to November 2020, focusing on the characteristics of patients according to whether they completed DNR/POLST documents. Patients were categorized into DNR/POLST group and no DNR/POLST group according to whether they completed DNR/POLST documents, and logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factors influencing DNR/POLST document completion.

RESULTS

A total of 577 patients were admitted to the ICU. Of these, 211 patients (36.6%) had DNR or POLST records. DNR and/or POLST were completed prior to ICU admission in 48 (22.7%) patients. The DNR/POLST group was older (72.9 ± 13.5 vs. 67.6 ± 13.8 years, p < 0.001) and had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (26.1 ± 9.2 vs. 20.3 ± 7.7, p < 0.001) and clinical frailty scale (5.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.4 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) than the other groups. Solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, and chronic lung disease were the most common comorbidities in the DNR/POLST groups. The DNR/POLST group had higher ICU and in-hospital mortality and more invasive treatments (arterial line, central line, renal replacement therapy, invasive mechanical ventilation) than the other groups. Body mass index, APAHCE II score, hematologic malignancy, DNR/POLST were factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ICU patients, 36.6% had DNR or POLST orders and received more invasive treatments. This is contrary to the common belief that DNR/POLST patients would receive less invasive treatment and underscores the need to better understand and include end-of-life care as an important ongoing aspect of patient care, along with communication with patients and families.

Prognostic models of in-hospital mortality of intensive care patients using neural representation of unstructured text: A systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of prognostic models of in-hospital mortality of patients in the intensive-care unit (ICU) based on neural representations (embeddings) of clinical notes.

METHODS

PubMed and arXiv were searched up to August 1, 2022. At least two reviewers independently selected the studies that developed a prognostic model of in-hospital mortality of intensive-care patients using free-text represented as embeddings and extracted data using the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. Reporting on the model was assessed with the TRIPOD guideline. To assess the machine learning components that were used in the models, we present a new descriptive framework based on different techniques to represent text and provide predictions from text. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022354602).

RESULTS

Eighteen studies out of 2,825 were included. All studies used the publicly-available MIMIC dataset. Context-independent word embeddings are widely used. Model discrimination was provided by all studies (AUROC 0.75-0.96), but measures of calibration were scarce. Seven studies used both structural clinical variables and notes. Model discrimination improved when adding clinical notes to variables. None of the models was externally validated and often a simple train/test split was used for internal validation. Our critical appraisal demonstrated a high risk of bias in all studies and concerns regarding their applicability in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

All studies used a neural architecture for prediction and were based on one publicly available dataset. Clinical notes were reported to improve predictive performance when used in addition to only clinical variables. Most studies had methodological, reporting, and applicability issues. We recommend reporting both model discrimination and calibration, using additional data sources, and using more robust evaluation strategies, including prospective and external validation. Finally, sharing data and code is encouraged to improve study reproducibility.

The Impact of Signing Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders on the Use of Non-Beneficial Life-Sustaining Treatments for Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Retrospective Study

Background: Intensive care medical technology increases the survival rate of critically ill patients. However, life-sustaining treatments also increase the probability of non-beneficial medical treatments given to patients at the end of life. Objective: This study aimed to analyse whether patients with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order were more likely to be subject to the withholding of cardiac resuscitation and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the ICU. Methods: This retrospective study collected data regarding the demographics, illness conditions, and life-sustaining treatments of ICU patients who were last admitted to the ICU between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017, as determined by the hospital’s electronic medical dataset. Results: We identified and collected data on 386 patients over the two years; 319 (82.6%) signed a DNR before the end. The study found that DNR patients were less likely to receive cardiac resuscitation before death than non-DNR patients. The cardiac resuscitation treatments included chest compressions, electric shock, and cardiotonic drug injections (p < 0.001). However, the life-sustaining treatments were withdrawn for only a few patients before death. The study highlights that an early-documented DNR order is essential. However, it needs to be considered that promoting discussions of time-limited trials might be the solution to helping ICU terminal patients withdraw from non-beneficial life-sustaining treatments.

Early DNR in Older Adults Hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Initial Pandemic Surge

The role of early Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) in hospitalized older adults (OAs) with SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. The objective of the study was to identify characteristics and outcomes associated with early DNR in hospitalized OAs with SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a retrospective chart review of older adults (65+) hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York, USA, between March 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020. Patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were collected. Early DNR (within 24 hours of admission) was compared to non-early DNR (late DNR, after 24 hours of admission, or no DNR). Outcomes included hospital morbidity and mortality. Of 4961 patients, early DNR prevalence was 5.7% (n = 283). Compared to non-early DNR, the early DNR group was older (85.0 vs 76.8, P < .001), women (51.2% vs 43.6%, P = .012), with higher comorbidity index (3.88 vs 3.36, P < .001), facility-based (49.1% vs 19.1%, P < .001), with dementia (13.3% vs 4.6%, P < .001), and severely ill on presentation (57.9% vs 32.3%, P < .001). In multivariable analyses, the early DNR group had higher mortality risk (OR: 2.94, 95% CI: 2.10-4.11), less hospital delirium (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40-.77), lower use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV, OR: 0.37, 95% CI: .21-.67), and shorter length of stay (LOS, 4.8 vs 10.3 days, P < .001), compared to non-early DNR. Regarding early vs late DNR, while there was no difference in mortality (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.85-1.62), the early DNR group experienced less delirium (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: .40-.75), IMV (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-.96), and shorter LOS (4.82 vs 10.63 days, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.30-.41). In conclusion, early DNR prevalence in hospitalized OAs with COVID-19 was low, and compared to non-early DNR is associated with higher mortality but lower morbidity.

The Impact of Do-Not-Resuscitate Order in the Emergency Department on Respiratory Failure after ICU Admission

(1) Background: It has been hypothesized that a discrepancy exists in the understanding of a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order among physicians. We hypothesized that a DNR order signed in the emergency department (ED) could influence the patients’ prognosis after intensive care unit (ICU) admission. (2) Methods: We included patients older than 17 years, who visited the emergency department for non-traumatic disease, who had respiratory failure, required ventilator support, and were admitted to the ICU between January 2010 and December 2016. The associations between DNR and mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and medical fees were analyzed. Prolonged hospital LOS was defined as hospital stay ≥75th percentile (≥26 days for the study). Patients were classified as those who did and did not sign a DNR order. A 1:4 propensity score matching was conducted for demographics, comorbidities, and etiology. (3) Results: The study enrolled a total of 1510 patients who signed a DNR and 6040 patients who did not sign a DNR. The 30-day mortality rates were 47.4% and 28.0% among patients who did and did not sign a DNR, respectively. A DNR order was associated with mortality after adjusting for confounding factors (hazard ratio, 1.9; confidence interval, 1.70−2.03). It was also a risk factor for prolonged hospital LOS in survivors (odds ratio, 1.2; confidence interval, 1.02−1.44). Survivors who signed a DNR order were charged higher medical fees than those who did not sign a DNR (217,159 vs. 245,795 New Taiwan Dollars, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Signing a DNR order in the ED increased the ICU mortality rate among patients who had respiratory failure and needed ventilator support. It increased the risk of prolonged hospital LOS among survivors. Finally, signing a DNR order was associated with high medical fees among survivors.

Early versus late DNR orders and its predictors in a Saudi Arabian ICU: A descriptive study

Background

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Determination of the characteristics and outcomes of the palliative care patients admitted to the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Terminally ill patients in need of palliative care present to emergency departments. This study aims to identify the usage level of the emergency departments by patients in need of palliative care, along with their experienced symptoms, preferences, needs, and the subsequent initiatives taken for symptom management.

METHODS

The study was designed as a cross-sectional study and conducted with a group of 208 patients. The Patient Information Form, the Form of the Criteria for Receiving Palliative Care, and the Karnofsky Performance Scale were used for data collection.

RESULTS

This report founda thatcancer patients were the most frequent users of emergency facilities within palliative care patient groups and more than half of those hospitalized patients were subsequently admitted to intensive care units. Patients with poorer functional conditions and in need of further palliative care preferred home care rather than receiving Advanced Cardiac Life Support.

CONCLUSION

This study displays evidence that palliative care patients with a poorer functional condition in need of further palliative care should be able to spend the last days of their lives at home with their families rather than in the exhausting and crowded environment of the emergency departments. Furthermore, healthcare policymakers should actively support palliative care as well as taking the necessary actions to mitigate the burden placed on hospital resources.

Decision-making regarding withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and the role of intensivists in the intensive care unit: a single-center study

Background

This study examined the experience of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in patients hospitalized in the intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary care center. It also considers the role that intensivists play in the decision-making process regarding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 227 patients who decided to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment while hospitalized at Ewha Womans University Medical Center Mokdong between April 9 and December 31, 2018.

Results

The 227 hospitalized patients included in the analysis withheld or withdrew from life-sustaining treatment. The department in which life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn most frequently was hemato-oncology (26.4%). Among these patients, the most common diagnosis was gastrointestinal tract cancer (29.1%). A majority of patients (64.3%) chose not to receive any life-sustaining treatment. Of the 80 patients in the ICU, intensivists participated in the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in 34 cases. There were higher proportions of treatment withdrawal and ICU-to-ward transfers among the cases in whom intensivists participated in decision making compared to those cases in whom intensivists did not participate (50.0% vs. 4.3% and 52.9% vs. 19.6%, respectively).

Conclusions

Through their participation in end-of-life discussions, intensivists can help patients’ families to make decisions about withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and possibly avoiding futile treatments for these patients.