姑息治疗咨询在接受静脉体外膜氧合(VV-ECMO)治疗的重症监护病房患者撤除维持生命治疗中的作用:一项回顾性病例对照研究。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gabriel Patarroyo-Aponte, Saeed Shoar, Deptmer M Ashley, Ali Noorbaksh, Dev Patel, Alisha Y Young, Bindu H Akkanti, Mark T Warner, Maria M Patarroyo-Aponte, Biswajit Kar, Igor D Gregoric, Caroline Ha, Bela Patel
{"title":"姑息治疗咨询在接受静脉体外膜氧合(VV-ECMO)治疗的重症监护病房患者撤除维持生命治疗中的作用:一项回顾性病例对照研究。","authors":"Gabriel Patarroyo-Aponte, Saeed Shoar, Deptmer M Ashley, Ali Noorbaksh, Dev Patel, Alisha Y Young, Bindu H Akkanti, Mark T Warner, Maria M Patarroyo-Aponte, Biswajit Kar, Igor D Gregoric, Caroline Ha, Bela Patel","doi":"10.1177/10499091231173092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i><b>Background:</b></i> Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has extended the survivability of critically ill patients beyond their unsupported prognosis and has widened the timeframe for making an informed decision about the goal of care. However, an extended time window for survival does not necessarily translate into a better outcome and the sustaining treatment is ultimately withdrawn in many patients. Emerging evidence has implicated the determining role of palliative care consult (PCC) in direction of the care that critically ill patients receive. <i><b>Objective:</b></i> To evaluate the impact of PCC in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WOLST) among critically ill patients, who were placed on venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) at the intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital. <i><b>Methods:</b></i> In a retrospective observational study, electronic medical records of 750 patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital between January 1, 2015, and October 31, 2021, were reviewed. Data was collected for patients on VV-ECMO, for whom WOLST was withdrawn during the ICU stay. Clinical characteristics and the underlying reasons for WOLST were compared between those who received PCC (PCC group) and those who did not (non-PCC group). <i><b>Results:</b></i> A total of 95 patients were included in our analysis, 63 in the PCC group and 32 in the non-PCC group. The average age of the study population was 48.8 ± 12.6 years, and 64.2% were male. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographics or clinical characteristics at the time of ICU admission. The average duration of ICU stay and VV-ECMO were 14.1 ± 19.9 days and 9.4 ± 16.6 days, respectively. The number of PCC visits was correlated with the length of ICU stay<i>.</i> The average duration of ICU stay (40.3 ± 33.2 days vs 27.8 ± 19.3 days, P = .05) and ECMO treatment (31.9 ± 27 days vs 18.6 ± 16.1 days, P = .01) were significantly longer in patients receiving PCC than those not receiving PCC. However, the frequency of life sustaining measures or the underlying reasons for WOLST did not significantly differ between the two groups (P > .05). <i><b>Conclusion:</b></i> Among ICU patients requiring ECMO support, longer duration of ICU stay and treatment with a higher number of life-sustaining measures seemed to be correlated with the number of PCC visits. The underlying reasons for WOLST seem not to be affected by PCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"150-157"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10751975/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Palliative Care Consultation in Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment among ICU Patients Receiving Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO): A Retrospective Case-Control Study.\",\"authors\":\"Gabriel Patarroyo-Aponte, Saeed Shoar, Deptmer M Ashley, Ali Noorbaksh, Dev Patel, Alisha Y Young, Bindu H Akkanti, Mark T Warner, Maria M Patarroyo-Aponte, Biswajit Kar, Igor D Gregoric, Caroline Ha, Bela Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231173092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i><b>Background:</b></i> Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has extended the survivability of critically ill patients beyond their unsupported prognosis and has widened the timeframe for making an informed decision about the goal of care. However, an extended time window for survival does not necessarily translate into a better outcome and the sustaining treatment is ultimately withdrawn in many patients. Emerging evidence has implicated the determining role of palliative care consult (PCC) in direction of the care that critically ill patients receive. <i><b>Objective:</b></i> To evaluate the impact of PCC in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WOLST) among critically ill patients, who were placed on venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) at the intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital. <i><b>Methods:</b></i> In a retrospective observational study, electronic medical records of 750 patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital between January 1, 2015, and October 31, 2021, were reviewed. Data was collected for patients on VV-ECMO, for whom WOLST was withdrawn during the ICU stay. Clinical characteristics and the underlying reasons for WOLST were compared between those who received PCC (PCC group) and those who did not (non-PCC group). <i><b>Results:</b></i> A total of 95 patients were included in our analysis, 63 in the PCC group and 32 in the non-PCC group. The average age of the study population was 48.8 ± 12.6 years, and 64.2% were male. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographics or clinical characteristics at the time of ICU admission. The average duration of ICU stay and VV-ECMO were 14.1 ± 19.9 days and 9.4 ± 16.6 days, respectively. The number of PCC visits was correlated with the length of ICU stay<i>.</i> The average duration of ICU stay (40.3 ± 33.2 days vs 27.8 ± 19.3 days, P = .05) and ECMO treatment (31.9 ± 27 days vs 18.6 ± 16.1 days, P = .01) were significantly longer in patients receiving PCC than those not receiving PCC. However, the frequency of life sustaining measures or the underlying reasons for WOLST did not significantly differ between the two groups (P > .05). <i><b>Conclusion:</b></i> Among ICU patients requiring ECMO support, longer duration of ICU stay and treatment with a higher number of life-sustaining measures seemed to be correlated with the number of PCC visits. The underlying reasons for WOLST seem not to be affected by PCC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"150-157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10751975/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231173092\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231173092","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)延长了危重病人的存活时间,使其超越了无依据的预后,并拓宽了就护理目标做出明智决定的时间范围。然而,生存时间窗口的延长并不一定转化为更好的预后,许多患者最终还是放弃了维持治疗。新出现的证据表明,姑息治疗咨询(PCC)对重症患者所接受的治疗起着决定性作用。目的评估姑息治疗咨询对一家三甲医院重症监护室(ICU)接受静脉腔内 ECMO(VV-ECMO)治疗的重症患者撤除维持生命治疗(WOLST)的影响。研究方法在一项回顾性观察研究中,我们回顾了 2015 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 10 月 31 日期间本医院重症监护室收治的 750 名患者的电子病历。研究收集了使用 VV-ECMO 的患者的数据,这些患者在重症监护室住院期间撤消了 WOLST。比较了接受 PCC 的患者(PCC 组)和未接受 PCC 的患者(非 PCC 组)的临床特征和 WOLST 的根本原因。结果共有 95 名患者纳入了我们的分析,其中 PCC 组 63 人,非 PCC 组 32 人。研究对象的平均年龄为(48.8 ± 12.6)岁,64.2%为男性。两组患者在入住重症监护室时的人口统计学或临床特征方面没有明显差异。重症监护室平均住院时间为(14.1±19.9)天,VV-ECMO平均住院时间为(9.4±16.6)天。PCC就诊次数与ICU住院时间相关。接受 PCC 治疗的患者的 ICU 平均住院时间(40.3 ± 33.2 天 vs 27.8 ± 19.3 天,P = .05)和 ECMO 治疗时间(31.9 ± 27 天 vs 18.6 ± 16.1 天,P = .01)明显长于未接受 PCC 治疗的患者。然而,两组患者采取维持生命措施的频率或 WOLST 的根本原因并无明显差异(P > .05)。结论在需要 ECMO 支持的 ICU 患者中,较长的 ICU 留观时间和较多的维持生命措施似乎与 PCC 访问次数相关。WOLST 的根本原因似乎不受 PCC 的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Palliative Care Consultation in Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment among ICU Patients Receiving Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO): A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has extended the survivability of critically ill patients beyond their unsupported prognosis and has widened the timeframe for making an informed decision about the goal of care. However, an extended time window for survival does not necessarily translate into a better outcome and the sustaining treatment is ultimately withdrawn in many patients. Emerging evidence has implicated the determining role of palliative care consult (PCC) in direction of the care that critically ill patients receive. Objective: To evaluate the impact of PCC in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WOLST) among critically ill patients, who were placed on venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) at the intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital. Methods: In a retrospective observational study, electronic medical records of 750 patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital between January 1, 2015, and October 31, 2021, were reviewed. Data was collected for patients on VV-ECMO, for whom WOLST was withdrawn during the ICU stay. Clinical characteristics and the underlying reasons for WOLST were compared between those who received PCC (PCC group) and those who did not (non-PCC group). Results: A total of 95 patients were included in our analysis, 63 in the PCC group and 32 in the non-PCC group. The average age of the study population was 48.8 ± 12.6 years, and 64.2% were male. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographics or clinical characteristics at the time of ICU admission. The average duration of ICU stay and VV-ECMO were 14.1 ± 19.9 days and 9.4 ± 16.6 days, respectively. The number of PCC visits was correlated with the length of ICU stay. The average duration of ICU stay (40.3 ± 33.2 days vs 27.8 ± 19.3 days, P = .05) and ECMO treatment (31.9 ± 27 days vs 18.6 ± 16.1 days, P = .01) were significantly longer in patients receiving PCC than those not receiving PCC. However, the frequency of life sustaining measures or the underlying reasons for WOLST did not significantly differ between the two groups (P > .05). Conclusion: Among ICU patients requiring ECMO support, longer duration of ICU stay and treatment with a higher number of life-sustaining measures seemed to be correlated with the number of PCC visits. The underlying reasons for WOLST seem not to be affected by PCC.

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
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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