新加坡重症监护病房暂停和撤销维持生命治疗的预测因素和结果:一项多中心观察研究。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Clare Fong, Wern Lunn Kueh, Sennen Jin Wen Lew, Benjamin Choon Heng Ho, Yu-Lin Wong, Yie Hui Lau, Yew Woon Chia, Hui Ling Tan, Ying Hao Christopher Seet, Wen Ting Siow, Graeme MacLaren, Rohit Agrawal, Tian Jin Lim, Shir Lynn Lim, Toon Wei Lim, Vui Kian Ho, Chai Rick Soh, Duu Wen Sewa, Chian Min Loo, Faheem Ahmed Khan, Chee Keat Tan, Roshni Sadashiv Gokhale, Chuin Siau, Noelle Louise Siew Hua Lim, Chik-Foo Yim, Jonathen Venkatachalam, Kumaresh Venkatesan, Naville Chi Hock Chia, Mei Fong Liew, Guihong Li, Li Li, Su Mon Myat, Zena Zena, Shuling Zhuo, Ling Ling Yueh, Caroline Shu Fang Tan, Jing Ma, Siew Lian Yeo, Yiong Huak Chan, Jason Phua
{"title":"新加坡重症监护病房暂停和撤销维持生命治疗的预测因素和结果:一项多中心观察研究。","authors":"Clare Fong, Wern Lunn Kueh, Sennen Jin Wen Lew, Benjamin Choon Heng Ho, Yu-Lin Wong, Yie Hui Lau, Yew Woon Chia, Hui Ling Tan, Ying Hao Christopher Seet, Wen Ting Siow, Graeme MacLaren, Rohit Agrawal, Tian Jin Lim, Shir Lynn Lim, Toon Wei Lim, Vui Kian Ho, Chai Rick Soh, Duu Wen Sewa, Chian Min Loo, Faheem Ahmed Khan, Chee Keat Tan, Roshni Sadashiv Gokhale, Chuin Siau, Noelle Louise Siew Hua Lim, Chik-Foo Yim, Jonathen Venkatachalam, Kumaresh Venkatesan, Naville Chi Hock Chia, Mei Fong Liew, Guihong Li, Li Li, Su Mon Myat, Zena Zena, Shuling Zhuo, Ling Ling Yueh, Caroline Shu Fang Tan, Jing Ma, Siew Lian Yeo, Yiong Huak Chan, Jason Phua","doi":"10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised.</p>","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964634/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Singapore: a multicentre observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Clare Fong, Wern Lunn Kueh, Sennen Jin Wen Lew, Benjamin Choon Heng Ho, Yu-Lin Wong, Yie Hui Lau, Yew Woon Chia, Hui Ling Tan, Ying Hao Christopher Seet, Wen Ting Siow, Graeme MacLaren, Rohit Agrawal, Tian Jin Lim, Shir Lynn Lim, Toon Wei Lim, Vui Kian Ho, Chai Rick Soh, Duu Wen Sewa, Chian Min Loo, Faheem Ahmed Khan, Chee Keat Tan, Roshni Sadashiv Gokhale, Chuin Siau, Noelle Louise Siew Hua Lim, Chik-Foo Yim, Jonathen Venkatachalam, Kumaresh Venkatesan, Naville Chi Hock Chia, Mei Fong Liew, Guihong Li, Li Li, Su Mon Myat, Zena Zena, Shuling Zhuo, Ling Ling Yueh, Caroline Shu Fang Tan, Jing Ma, Siew Lian Yeo, Yiong Huak Chan, Jason Phua\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964634/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重症监护病房(ICU)限制维持生命治疗(LST)的临床实践指南指出,暂停或撤消 LST 在伦理上并无区别。这种说法在世界范围内并未得到一致认可,而亚洲关于 LST 限制的研究也很少。本研究旨在评估新加坡暂停和撤消 LST 的预测因素和结果,重点关注两种方法的异同:这是一项多中心观察性研究,研究对象是新加坡 9 家公立医院 21 个成人重症监护病房的住院患者,研究时间为 2014 年至 2019 年,平均每年三个月。主要结果指标是暂停和撤消LST(心肺复苏、有创机械通气和血管加压素/肌注)。次要结果指标为住院死亡率。采用多变量广义混合模型分析来确定撤除和暂停 LST 的独立预测因素,以及 LST 限制是否可预测住院死亡率:结果:共有 8907 名患者和 9723 次住院。在前者中,80.8%的患者未限制 LST,13.0%的患者暂停 LST,6.2%的患者撤回 LST。诱发暂停和撤消LST的常见独立预测因素包括:年龄增大、无慢性肾透析、日常生活活动依赖性较强、入ICU前进行过心肺复苏、急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACHE)II评分较高以及入ICU后24小时内护理水平较高。其他可预测暂停治疗的因素包括华裔、印度教和伊斯兰教、恶性肿瘤和慢性肝功能衰竭。另一个预测放弃治疗的因素是医院支付等级较低(政府对医院账单的补贴较多)。无 LST 限制、暂停 LST 和撤消 LST 的患者的住院死亡率分别为 10.6%、82.1% 和 91.8%(P 结论:LST 限制和撤消 LST 的独立预测因素存在差异:暂停和撤消 LST 的独立预测因素存在差异。即使考虑了基线特征,暂停和撤消 LST 仍可独立预测住院死亡率。与暂停相比,撤消 LST 的患者死亡率较高,这表明撤消 LST 的决定可能是在认识到医疗无效的情况下做出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Singapore: a multicentre observational study.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches.

Methods: This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality.

Results: There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis.

Conclusions: Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
×
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