Treatment-Limiting Decisions in Neurointensive Care: Withholding or Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Measures.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Isabella Carvalho Ankerstjerne, Anne-Sophie Worm Fenger, Markus Harboe Olsen, Ove Bergdal, Daniel Kondziella, Helene Ravnholt Jensen, Gorm Greisen, Tiit Illimar Mathiesen, Kirsten Møller
{"title":"Treatment-Limiting Decisions in Neurointensive Care: Withholding or Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Measures.","authors":"Isabella Carvalho Ankerstjerne, Anne-Sophie Worm Fenger, Markus Harboe Olsen, Ove Bergdal, Daniel Kondziella, Helene Ravnholt Jensen, Gorm Greisen, Tiit Illimar Mathiesen, Kirsten Møller","doi":"10.1111/aas.70202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment-limiting decisions (TLDs) in neurointensive care are frequently reported with no distinction between withholding and withdrawal of treatment. We investigated the proportion of patients subjected to withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment during neurointensive care, and the association with mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational cohort study included all adult (≥ 18 years) neurocritically ill patients admitted to the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU), Rigshospitalet, Denmark, for a primary CNS injury during the period from July 2019 to February 2022. Patients were categorised into the following three groups: full treatment, withholding, or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. We compared 30-day all-cause mortality of the three groups by a Cox proportional-hazards model and by calculating the mean restricted survival time at 30 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 694 eligible patients, a decision to withhold or withdraw treatment was made for 50 (7.2%) and 124 (17.9%) patients, respectively. Patients subjected to withholding were older and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, whereas those subjected to withdrawal had a lower Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. While the primary neurological injury was the main reason for the treatment-limiting decision, and comorbidity contributed in both groups, a history of cardiac arrest was also stated as a reason for withdrawing, and non-neurological injury as a reason for withholding therapy. The 30-day case fatality ratio was 32%, 98% and 8.1% for patients subjected to withholding, withdrawal and full treatment, respectively, corresponding to a mean restricted survival time at 30 days of 24 (95% CI, 21-27), 10.0 (8.2-12) and 29 (28, 29) days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, TLDs were made in one out of four neuro-ICU patients. Furthermore, neurocritically ill patients subjected to withholding treatment had markedly higher survival than those subjected to withdrawal.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>In this assessment of treatment-limiting decisions in neuro-intensive care cases, the authors present how withholding escalating ICU treatment can occur in case conditions that differ from those where active ICU treatment is withdrawn.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"70 3","pages":"e70202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12925652/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70202","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Treatment-limiting decisions (TLDs) in neurointensive care are frequently reported with no distinction between withholding and withdrawal of treatment. We investigated the proportion of patients subjected to withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment during neurointensive care, and the association with mortality.

Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study included all adult (≥ 18 years) neurocritically ill patients admitted to the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU), Rigshospitalet, Denmark, for a primary CNS injury during the period from July 2019 to February 2022. Patients were categorised into the following three groups: full treatment, withholding, or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. We compared 30-day all-cause mortality of the three groups by a Cox proportional-hazards model and by calculating the mean restricted survival time at 30 days.

Results: Of 694 eligible patients, a decision to withhold or withdraw treatment was made for 50 (7.2%) and 124 (17.9%) patients, respectively. Patients subjected to withholding were older and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, whereas those subjected to withdrawal had a lower Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. While the primary neurological injury was the main reason for the treatment-limiting decision, and comorbidity contributed in both groups, a history of cardiac arrest was also stated as a reason for withdrawing, and non-neurological injury as a reason for withholding therapy. The 30-day case fatality ratio was 32%, 98% and 8.1% for patients subjected to withholding, withdrawal and full treatment, respectively, corresponding to a mean restricted survival time at 30 days of 24 (95% CI, 21-27), 10.0 (8.2-12) and 29 (28, 29) days.

Conclusion: In this study, TLDs were made in one out of four neuro-ICU patients. Furthermore, neurocritically ill patients subjected to withholding treatment had markedly higher survival than those subjected to withdrawal.

Editorial comment: In this assessment of treatment-limiting decisions in neuro-intensive care cases, the authors present how withholding escalating ICU treatment can occur in case conditions that differ from those where active ICU treatment is withdrawn.

神经重症监护中限制治疗的决定:保留或撤销维持生命的措施。
背景:神经重症监护中的治疗限制决定(tld)经常被报道,没有区分停止和停止治疗。我们调查了在神经重症监护期间暂停和停止维持生命治疗的患者比例,以及与死亡率的关系。方法:本回顾性观察队列研究纳入了2019年7月至2022年2月期间因原发性中枢神经系统损伤入住丹麦Rigshospitalet神经重症监护病房(neuroi - icu)的所有成年(≥18岁)神经危重症患者。患者被分为以下三组:完全治疗,停止或停止维持生命的治疗。我们通过Cox比例风险模型和计算30天的平均限制生存时间来比较三组30天的全因死亡率。结果:在694例符合条件的患者中,分别有50例(7.2%)和124例(17.9%)患者决定停止或停止治疗。接受停药的患者年龄较大,Charlson合并症指数较高,而接受停药的患者格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)较低,急性生理和慢性健康评估II评分较高。虽然原发性神经损伤是决定限制治疗的主要原因,两组患者的合并症也有影响,但心脏骤停史也被认为是停止治疗的原因,非神经损伤是暂停治疗的原因。停药、停药和完全治疗患者的30天病死率分别为32%、98%和8.1%,对应于30天的平均限制生存时间为24 (95% CI, 21-27)、10.0(8.2-12)和29(28,29)天。结论:在本研究中,四分之一的神经icu患者获得了tld。此外,神经危重症患者接受扣留治疗的生存率明显高于接受戒断治疗的患者。编辑评论:在对神经重症监护病例的治疗限制决策的评估中,作者介绍了如何在与停用积极ICU治疗的病例不同的情况下不进行逐步升级的ICU治疗。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书