Patient values informing medical treatment: a pilot community and advance care planning survey.

Medicine regards the prevention of death as an important priority. Yet patients may have a range of priorities of equal or greater importance. These other priorities are often not discussed or appreciated by treating doctors. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify priorities of care for patients attending an advance care planning (ACP) clinic and among the general population, and to identify factors associated with priorities other than prolonging life. METHODS: We used a locally developed survey tool 'What Matters Most' to identify values. Choices presented were: maintaining dignity, avoiding pain and suffering, living as long as possible, and remaining independent. Participants rated the importance of each and then selected a main priority for their doctor. Participant groups were a purposive sample of 382 lay people from the general population and 100 attendees at an ACP clinic. RESULTS: Living as long as possible was considered to be less important than other values for ACP patients and for the general population. Only 4% of ACP patients surveyed and 2.6% of our general population sample selected 'living as long as possible' as their top priority for medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: 'Living as long as possible' was not the most important value for ACP patients, or for a younger general population. Prioritisation of other goals appeared to be independent of extreme age or illness. When end of life treatment is being discussed with patients, priorities other than merely prolonging life should be considered.

A trial of nebulised heparin to limit lung injury following cardiac surgery.

Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass triggers an acute inflammatory response in the lungs. This response gives rise to fibrin deposition in the microvasculature and alveoli of the lungs. Fibrin deposition in the microvasculature increases alveolar dead space, while fibrin deposition in alveoli causes shunting. We investigated whether prophylactic nebulised heparin could limit this form of lung injury. We undertook a single-centre double-blind randomised trial. Forty patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were randomised to prophylactic nebulised heparin (50,000 U) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in arterial oxygen levels over the operative period. Secondary endpoints included end-tidal CO2, the alveolar dead space fraction and bleeding complications. We found nebulised heparin did not improve arterial oxygen levels. Nebulised heparin was, however, associated with a lower alveolar dead space fraction (P <0.05) and lower tidal volumes at the end of surgery (P <0.01). Nebulised heparin was not associated with bleeding complications. In conclusion, prophylactic nebulised heparin did not improve oxygenation, but was associated with evidence of better alveolar perfusion and CO2elimination at the end of surgery.

Glycaemic control and long-term outcomes following transition from modified intensive insulin therapy to conventional glycaemic control.

This retrospective observational cohort study compared glycaemic control and long-term outcomes following transition from a modified intensive insulin therapy (mIIT) regimen to conventional glycaemic control (CGC) in adult patients admitted to a tertiary adult general intensive care unit, during two 24-month periods, before and after the publication of the Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Surviving Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation (NICE-SUGAR) trial. The before NICE-SUGAR cohort received mIIT (target glycaemic ranges 4.4 to 7.0 mmol/l), while the after NICE-SUGAR cohort received CGC (target glycaemic range 7.1 to 9.0 mmol/l). A total of 5202 patients were included in the study. With transition from mIIT to CGC, the mean time-weighted glucose increased from 6.94 mmol/l to 8.2 mmol/l (P <0.0001). A similar increase was observed in other glycaemic indices (mean, highest and lowest glucose values, P <0.0001 for all). The adjusted 90-day odds ratio for mortality decreased by 47% with transition from mIIT to CGC (odds ratio 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.78) (P <0.0001). The rate of severe and moderate hypoglycaemia also decreased from 1.2 to 0.4% (P=0.004) and from 23.3 to 5.9% (P <0.0001), respectively. mIIT was associated with an increased risk of moderate and severe hypoglycaemia compared to CGC (odds ratio 3.1 (1.51 to 6.39) (P=0.002), 6.29 (5.1 to 7.75) (P <0.0001)). Changes in recommended glycaemic control were translated into practice, with increased glycaemic indices and decreased rates of severe and moderate hypoglycaemia after the introduction of CGC. The associated decrease in 90-day mortality suggests mIIT was not superior to CGC, despite a lower hypoglycaemia rate than in previous IIT trials. Our findings support the continued use of CGC.