Withdrawal/Withholding of Life-Sustaining Therapies: Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in the Intensive Care Unit

Q4 Medicine
Medicina Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.3390/medicina60091461
Ángel Becerra-Bolaños, Daniela F. Ramos-Ahumada, Lorena Herrera-Rodríguez, Lucía Valencia-Sola, Nazario Ojeda-Betancor, Aurelio Rodríguez-Pérez
{"title":"Withdrawal/Withholding of Life-Sustaining Therapies: Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in the Intensive Care Unit","authors":"Ángel Becerra-Bolaños, Daniela F. Ramos-Ahumada, Lorena Herrera-Rodríguez, Lucía Valencia-Sola, Nazario Ojeda-Betancor, Aurelio Rodríguez-Pérez","doi":"10.3390/medicina60091461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/Objectives: The change in critically ill patients makes limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) a widespread practice when therapeutic goals cannot be achieved. We aimed to describe the application of LTE in a post-surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU), analyze the measures used, the characteristics of the patients, and their evolution. Methods: Retrospective observational study, including all patients to whom LTE was applied in a postsurgical ICU between January 2021 and December 2022. The LTE defined were brain death, withdrawal of measures, and withholding. Withholding limitations included orders for no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no orotracheal intubation, no reintubation, no tracheostomy, no renal replacement therapies, and no vasoactive support. Patient and ICU admission data were related to the applied LTE. Results: Of the 2056 admitted, LTE protocols were applied to 106 patients. The prevalence of LTE in the ICU was 5.1%. Data were analyzed in 80 patients. A total of 91.2% of patients had been admitted in an emergency situation, and 56.2% had been admitted after surgery. The most widespread limitation was treatment withholding (83.8%) compared to withdrawal (13.8%). No differences were found regarding who made the decision and the type of limitation employed. However, patients with the limitation of no intubation had a longer stay (p = 0.025). Additionally, the order of not starting or increasing vasopressor support resulted in a longer hospital stay (p = 0.007) and a significantly longer stay until death (p = 0.044). Conclusions: LTE is a frequent measure in critically ill patient management and is less common in the postoperative setting. The most widespread measure was withholding, with the do-not-resuscitate order being the most common. The decision was made mainly by the medical team and the family, respecting the wishes of the patients. A joint patient-centered approach should be made in these decisions to avoid futile treatment and ensure end-of-life comfort.","PeriodicalId":18512,"journal":{"name":"Medicina","volume":"161 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60091461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The change in critically ill patients makes limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) a widespread practice when therapeutic goals cannot be achieved. We aimed to describe the application of LTE in a post-surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU), analyze the measures used, the characteristics of the patients, and their evolution. Methods: Retrospective observational study, including all patients to whom LTE was applied in a postsurgical ICU between January 2021 and December 2022. The LTE defined were brain death, withdrawal of measures, and withholding. Withholding limitations included orders for no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no orotracheal intubation, no reintubation, no tracheostomy, no renal replacement therapies, and no vasoactive support. Patient and ICU admission data were related to the applied LTE. Results: Of the 2056 admitted, LTE protocols were applied to 106 patients. The prevalence of LTE in the ICU was 5.1%. Data were analyzed in 80 patients. A total of 91.2% of patients had been admitted in an emergency situation, and 56.2% had been admitted after surgery. The most widespread limitation was treatment withholding (83.8%) compared to withdrawal (13.8%). No differences were found regarding who made the decision and the type of limitation employed. However, patients with the limitation of no intubation had a longer stay (p = 0.025). Additionally, the order of not starting or increasing vasopressor support resulted in a longer hospital stay (p = 0.007) and a significantly longer stay until death (p = 0.044). Conclusions: LTE is a frequent measure in critically ill patient management and is less common in the postoperative setting. The most widespread measure was withholding, with the do-not-resuscitate order being the most common. The decision was made mainly by the medical team and the family, respecting the wishes of the patients. A joint patient-centered approach should be made in these decisions to avoid futile treatment and ensure end-of-life comfort.
撤销/暂停维持生命疗法:限制重症监护室的治疗努力
背景/目的:重症患者的病情变化使得在无法实现治疗目标时,限制治疗努力(LTE)成为一种普遍做法。我们旨在描述外科术后重症监护病房(ICU)中限制治疗努力的应用情况,分析所使用的措施、患者的特点及其演变。研究方法回顾性观察研究,包括2021年1月至2022年12月期间在手术后重症监护病房应用LTE的所有患者。LTE的定义为脑死亡、撤消措施和暂停。暂停限制包括不进行心肺复苏、不进行气管插管、不进行再插管、不进行气管造口术、不进行肾脏替代治疗和不进行血管活性支持。患者和重症监护室的入院数据与所应用的 LTE 有关。结果:在入院的 2056 名患者中,有 106 名患者采用了 LTE 方案。LTE 在重症监护室的发病率为 5.1%。对 80 名患者的数据进行了分析。共有 91.2% 的患者是在紧急情况下入院的,56.2% 的患者是在手术后入院的。最普遍的限制是暂停治疗(83.8%),而不是撤消治疗(13.8%)。在由谁做出决定和采用的限制类型方面没有发现差异。不过,采用不插管限制的患者住院时间更长(p = 0.025)。此外,不启动或增加血管加压支持的患者住院时间更长(p = 0.007),死亡前的住院时间也明显更长(p = 0.044)。结论LTE是危重病人管理中经常采用的措施,但在术后环境中并不常见。最普遍的措施是暂停治疗,其中最常见的是下达 "拒绝复苏 "命令。决定主要由医疗团队和家属在尊重患者意愿的基础上做出。在做出这些决定时应共同采取以患者为中心的方法,以避免无用的治疗并确保生命末期的舒适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medicina
Medicina Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Publicada con el apoyo del Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva. Medicina no tiene propósitos comerciales. El objeto de su creación ha sido propender al adelanto de la medicina argentina. Los beneficios que pudieran obtenerse serán aplicados exclusivamente a ese fin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信