Consent is a confounding factor in a prospective observational study of critically ill elderly patients.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
18
03
2022
accepted:
21
09
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
1
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During analysis of a prospective multinational observation study of critically ill patients ≥80 years of age, the VIP2 study, we also studied the effects of differences in country consent for study inclusion. This is a post hoc analysis where the ICUs were analyzed according to requirement for study consent. Group A: ICUs in countries with no requirement for consent at admission but with deferred consent in survivors. Group B: ICUs where some form of active consent at admission was necessary either from the patient or surrogates. Patients' characteristics, the severity of disease and outcome variables were compared. Totally 3098 patients were included from 21 countries. The median age was 84 years (IQR 81-87). England was not included because of changing criteria for consent during the study period. Group A (7 countries, 1200 patients), and group B (15 countries, 1898 patients) were comparable with age and gender distribution. Cognition was better preserved prior to admission in group B. Group A suffered from more organ dysfunction at admission compared to group B with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score median 8 and 6 respectively. ICU survival was lower in group A, 66.2% compared to 78.4% in group B (p<0.001). We hence found profound effects on outcomes according to differences in obtaining consent for this study. It seems that the most severely ill elderly patients were less often recruited to the study in group B. Hence the outcome measured as survival was higher in this group. We therefore conclude that consent likely is an important confounding factor for outcome evaluation in international studies focusing on old patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36301954
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276386
pii: PONE-D-22-08080
pmc: PMC9612504
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0276386Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Joerg C. Schefold declares that the Dept. of Intensive Care Medicine Bern has/ had research and/or development/consulting contracts with (full disclosure): Orion Corporation, Abbott Nutrition International, B. Braun Medical AG, CSEM SA, Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH/SA, Kenta Biotech Ltd, Maquet Critical Care AB, Omnicare Clinical Research AG, and Nestlé. Educational grants were received from Fresenius Kabi; GSK; MSD; Lilly; Baxter; Astellas; AstraZeneca; B. Braun Medical AG, CSL Behring, Maquet, Novartis, Covidien, Nycomed, Pierre Fabre Pharma (Roba Pharma); Pfizer, Orion Pharma. The money went into departmental funds. No personal financial gain applies. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials All other authors do not have any conflict of interest to declare related to this manuscript.
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Jan;46(1):57-69
pubmed: 31784798
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jun 3;20(1):39
pubmed: 31159853
J Clin Ethics. 2015 Spring;26(1):61-7
pubmed: 25794295
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jun;74:51-6
pubmed: 26677982
BMJ. 2009 Mar 12;338:b866
pubmed: 19282440
Intensive Care Med. 1999 Jul;25(7):686-96
pubmed: 10470572
Clin Ethics. 2018 Sep;13(3):107-111
pubmed: 30127668