Criteria for taking an advance decision to limit the transfer to intensive care of patients aged 75 and over, hospitalised in an acute geriatric unit.

advance limitation elderly patient geriatric criteria intensive care

Journal

Geriatrie et psychologie neuropsychiatrie du vieillissement
ISSN: 2115-7863
Titre abrégé: Geriatr Psychol Neuropsychiatr Vieil
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101553404

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Dec 2021
Historique:
entrez: 22 12 2021
pubmed: 23 12 2021
medline: 23 12 2021
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Due to the diversity of the elderly population and medical practices, the decision to transfer elderly patients to an intensive care unit is complex. This study aimed to identify the criteria used to take an advance decision to limit transfer to an intensive care unit of patients hospitalised in an acute geriatric unit. This retrospective study included, over a ten-month period, patients >75 years and hospitalised in an acute geriatric unit. They were divided into two groups according to whether or not an advanced decision to limit transfer to an intensive care unit had been taken. In total, 906 elderly patients were included in the study. Of them, 446 had no advance decision to limit transfer to an ICU. Univariate analysis showed a correlation between an advance decision to limit transfer to an ICU and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of less than 20/30. Malnutrition had no impact on the advance decision. In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with an advance decision to limit transfer to an ICU were an age > 85 years, a hospitalisation in the last six months (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.72, Confidence Interval (CI) 95% [1.23-2.39]), residence in a nursing home (OR = 1.93, 95% CI [1.18-0.16]) and the presence of bedsores (OR = 2.44, 95% CI [1.20-0.98]). A zero Charlson score was associated with the absence of an advance decision to limit transfer to an ICU (OR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.26-0.67]). Some criteria are common to geriatricians, intensive care doctors and emergency physicians, while others are discordant, illustrating differences in physicians' practices.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34933844
pii: pnv.2021.0989
doi: 10.1684/pnv.2021.0989
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Auteurs

Jérémie Vovelle (J)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Jeremy Barben (J)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Agnés Camus (A)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Anca-Maria Mihai (AM)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Mélanie Dipanda (M)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Valentine Nuss (V)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Caroline Laborde (C)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Sophie Putot (S)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Alain Putot (A)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Patrick Manckoundia (P)

CHU de Dijon Bourgogne, Pôle personnes âgées, Service de médecine interne gériatrie, Dijon, France.

Classifications MeSH