Predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Singapore: a multicentre observational study.

Intensive care Life-sustaining treatment Withdrawal Withholding

Journal

Journal of intensive care

ISSN: 2052-0492

Titre abrégé: J Intensive Care

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101627304

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Mar 2024

Historique:

received: 14 01 2024

accepted: 13 03 2024

medline: 26 3 2024

pubmed: 26 3 2024

entrez: 26 3 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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 Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn.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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS 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 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 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.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3 PMID: 38528556

pubmed: 38528556

doi: 10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3

pii: 10.1186/s40560-024-00725-3

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

Informations de copyright

Références

Veatch RM. Limiting life support: a world-wide consensus? Crit Care Med. 2004;32(2):597–8.

doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000110662.17035.76 pubmed: 14758190

Mentzelopoulos SD, Chen S, Nates JL, Kruser JM, Hartog C, Michalsen A, et al. Derivation and performance of an end-of-life practice score aimed at interpreting worldwide treatment-limiting decisions in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):106.

doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-03971-9 pubmed: 35418103 pmcid: 9009016

Mark NM, Rayner SG, Lee NJ, Curtis JR. Global variability in withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1572–85.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3810-5 pubmed: 25904183

British Medical Association. Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment : guidance for decision-making. London: BMJ; 2001.

Ferdinande P, Berre JL, Colardyn F, Damas P, Marré Fd, Devlieger H et al. La fin de la vie en médecine intensive. Réanimation. 2001;10:340–1.

Gedge E, Giacomini M, Cook D. Withholding and withdrawing life support in critical care settings: ethical issues concerning consent. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(4):215–8.

doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017038 pubmed: 17400619 pmcid: 2652778

Rubenfeld GD. Principles and practice of withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. Crit Care Clin. 2004;20(3):435–51, ix.

Truog RD, Campbell ML, Curtis JR, Haas CE, Luce JM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College [corrected] of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):953–63.

doi: 10.1097/CCM.0B013E3181659096 pubmed: 18431285

Giannini A, Pessina A, Tacchi EM. End-of-life decisions in intensive care units: attitudes of physicians in an Italian urban setting. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(11):1902–10.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1919-4 pubmed: 13680120

Vincent JL. Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: the results of an ethical questionnaire. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(8):1626–33.

doi: 10.1097/00003246-199908000-00042 pubmed: 10470775

Melltorp G, Nilstun T. The difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23(12):1264–7.

doi: 10.1007/s001340050496 pubmed: 9470083

Phua J, Joynt GM, Nishimura M, Deng Y, Myatra SN, Chan YH, et al. Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Asia. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):363–71.

doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7386 pubmed: 25581712

Adhikari NK, Fowler RA, Bhagwanjee S, Rubenfeld GD. Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1339–46.

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60446-1 pubmed: 20934212 pmcid: 7136988

Intensive Care Society. Levels of Critical Care for Adult Patients. 2009. http://icmwk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Revised-Levels-of-Care-21-12-09.pdf .

Avidan A, Sprung CL, Schefold JC, Ricou B, Hartog CS, Nates JL, et al. Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(10):1101–10.

doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00261-7 pubmed: 34364537

Lobo SM, De Simoni FHB, Jakob SM, Estella A, Vadi S, Bluethgen A, et al. Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: a worldwide perspective. Chest. 2017;152(2):321–9.

doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.176 pubmed: 28483610

Esteban A, Gordo F, Solsona JF, Alia I, Caballero J, Bouza C, et al. Withdrawing and withholding life support in the intensive care unit: a Spanish prospective multi-centre observational study. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(11):1744–9.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-001-1111-7 pubmed: 11810117

Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P, Lemaire F, French LG. Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive-care units in France: a prospective survey. French LATAREA Group. Lancet. 2001;357(9249):9–14.

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03564-9 pubmed: 11197395

Quill CM, Ratcliffe SJ, Harhay MO, Halpern SD. Variation in decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies in US ICUs. Chest. 2014;146(3):573–82.

doi: 10.1378/chest.13-2529 pubmed: 24522751 pmcid: 4151359

Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, et al. End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus Study. JAMA. 2003;290(6):790–7.

doi: 10.1001/jama.290.6.790 pubmed: 12915432

Wunsch H, Harrison DA, Harvey S, Rowan K. End-of-life decisions: a cohort study of the withdrawal of all active treatment in intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(6):823–31.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2644-y pubmed: 15856168

Vincent JL, Parquier JN, Preiser JC, Brimioulle S, Kahn RJ. Terminal events in the intensive care unit: review of 258 fatal cases in one year. Crit Care Med. 1989;17(6):530–3.

doi: 10.1097/00003246-198906000-00009 pubmed: 2721211

Kranidiotis G, Gerovasili V, Tasoulis A, Tripodaki E, Vasileiadis I, Magira E, et al. End-of-life decisions in Greek intensive care units: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2010;14(6):R228.

doi: 10.1186/cc9380 pubmed: 21172003 pmcid: 3219993

Joynt GM, Lipman J, Hartog C, Guidet B, Paruk F, Feldman C, et al. The Durban World Congress Ethics Round Table IV: health care professional end-of-life decision making. J Crit Care. 2015;30(2):224–30.

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.10.011 pubmed: 25454075

Wong SP, Kreuter W, O'Hare AM. Treatment intensity at the end of life in older adults receiving long-term dialysis. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(8):661–3; discussion 663–4.

Mandel EI, Bernacki RE, Block SD. Serious illness conversations in ESRD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(5):854–63.

doi: 10.2215/CJN.05760516 pubmed: 28031417

Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Teno JM. Understanding variability of end-of-life care in the ICU for the elderly. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(1):94–6.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4340-5 pubmed: 27033890

Sprung CL, Maia P, Bulow HH, Ricou B, Armaganidis A, Baras M, et al. The importance of religious affiliation and culture on end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(10):1732–9.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0693-0 pubmed: 17541550

Park SY, Phua J, Nishimura M, Deng Y, Kang Y, Tada K, et al. End-of-life care in ICUs in East Asia: a comparison Among China, Korea, and Japan. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(7):1114–24.

doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003138 pubmed: 29629982

Phua J, Joynt GM, Nishimura M, Deng Y, Myatra SN, Chan YH, et al. Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in low-middle-income versus high-income Asian countries and regions. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(7):1118–27.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4347-y pubmed: 27071388

Azoulay E, Metnitz B, Sprung CL, Timsit JF, Lemaire F, Bauer P, et al. End-of-life practices in 282 intensive care units: data from the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(4):623–30.

doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1310-6 pubmed: 18850088

Ong SE, Tyagi S, Lim JM, Chia KS, Legido-Quigley H. Health systems reforms in Singapore: a qualitative study of key stakeholders. Health Policy. 2018;122(4):431–43.

doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.005 pubmed: 29478876

Chong PH, Hii I, Yeo Z. Terminal discharge from hospital back home to die: experience and perspectives from a home hospice. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-744621/v1 .