Treatment intensity, age and outcome in mechanical ventilated very old patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Maria Doroti Sousa da Rosa, Gabriela Rech, Regis Gourlart Rosa, Henrique Mezzomo Pasqual, Cassiano Teixeira
{"title":"Treatment intensity, age and outcome in mechanical ventilated very old patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit.","authors":"Maria Doroti Sousa da Rosa, Gabriela Rech, Regis Gourlart Rosa, Henrique Mezzomo Pasqual, Cassiano Teixeira","doi":"10.4187/respcare.12317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The global population is aging, and the proportion of elderly patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) is increasing. In this scenario, achieving a balance between judicious utilization of a limited and high-cost resource and providing optimal intensity of care presents a challenge, given that in very elderly patients, the value of ICU care is uncertain. The aim of our study is to evaluate the survival of older patients admitted to ICU who require mechanical ventilation (MV) at different levels of treatment intensity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive longitudinal ICU database was retrospectively analyzed at a single tertiary center, from January 2008 to December 2014, of ICU subjects 80 years old or older who required mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From January 2009 to December 2014, 482 subjects were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. Among them, 376 (78%) were aged between 80 to 89 years, and 106 (22%) were aged 90 years or older, with a mean age of 85.84 (4.56). The mean APACHE II score was 21.53 (7.42), and the mean SOFA score was 5.75 (3.38). The total mortality during ICU admission was 46%, and the hospital mortality was 58%. Only age higher than 90 years (1.41(1.05;1.91), P = .02) and APACHE score (1.03(1.01;1.05), P < .001) were associated with mortality after adjustments. The TISS score was analyzed in tertiles and was not related to mortality in univariate analysis or after adjustments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data indicate that in older subjects using MV, higher intensity of treatment does not seem to translate into a survival benefit. This finding highlights the importance of considering individualized treatment plans for elderly patients in the ICU.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12317","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The global population is aging, and the proportion of elderly patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) is increasing. In this scenario, achieving a balance between judicious utilization of a limited and high-cost resource and providing optimal intensity of care presents a challenge, given that in very elderly patients, the value of ICU care is uncertain. The aim of our study is to evaluate the survival of older patients admitted to ICU who require mechanical ventilation (MV) at different levels of treatment intensity.

Methods: A comprehensive longitudinal ICU database was retrospectively analyzed at a single tertiary center, from January 2008 to December 2014, of ICU subjects 80 years old or older who required mechanical ventilation.

Results: From January 2009 to December 2014, 482 subjects were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. Among them, 376 (78%) were aged between 80 to 89 years, and 106 (22%) were aged 90 years or older, with a mean age of 85.84 (4.56). The mean APACHE II score was 21.53 (7.42), and the mean SOFA score was 5.75 (3.38). The total mortality during ICU admission was 46%, and the hospital mortality was 58%. Only age higher than 90 years (1.41(1.05;1.91), P = .02) and APACHE score (1.03(1.01;1.05), P < .001) were associated with mortality after adjustments. The TISS score was analyzed in tertiles and was not related to mortality in univariate analysis or after adjustments.

Conclusions: Our data indicate that in older subjects using MV, higher intensity of treatment does not seem to translate into a survival benefit. This finding highlights the importance of considering individualized treatment plans for elderly patients in the ICU.

在重症监护室接受机械通气的高龄患者的治疗强度、年龄和结果。
背景:全球人口正在老龄化,入住重症监护病房(ICU)的老年患者比例正在增加。在这种情况下,如何在合理利用有限的高成本资源和提供最佳护理强度之间取得平衡是一项挑战,因为对于高龄患者来说,重症监护室护理的价值并不确定。我们的研究旨在评估入住 ICU 并需要机械通气(MV)的老年患者在不同治疗强度下的存活率:方法:在一家三级医疗中心,对 2008 年 1 月至 2014 年 12 月期间需要机械通气的 80 岁或以上 ICU 受试者的综合纵向 ICU 数据库进行了回顾性分析:2009年1月至2014年12月,482名患者入住重症监护病房并需要机械通气。其中,376人(78%)的年龄在80至89岁之间,106人(22%)的年龄在90岁或以上,平均年龄为85.84(4.56)岁。平均 APACHE II 评分为 21.53(7.42)分,平均 SOFA 评分为 5.75(3.38)分。入住重症监护室期间的总死亡率为 46%,住院死亡率为 58%。经调整后,只有年龄大于 90 岁(1.41(1.05;1.91),P = .02)和 APACHE 评分(1.03(1.01;1.05),P < .001)与死亡率相关。对 TISS 评分进行了分层分析,在单变量分析或调整后,TISS 评分与死亡率无关:我们的数据表明,在使用 MV 的老年患者中,较高的治疗强度似乎并不能转化为生存获益。结论:我们的数据表明,在使用 MV 的老年患者中,较高的治疗强度似乎并不能转化为生存益处。这一发现突出了考虑为重症监护室中的老年患者制定个体化治疗计划的重要性。
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
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
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