RESUMO
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic created complex challenges regarding the timing and appropriateness of do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) and/or Do Not Intubate (DNI) code status orders. This paper sought to determine differences in utilization of DNACPR and/or DNI orders during different time periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, including prevalence, predictors, timing, and outcomes associated with having a documented DNACPR and/or DNI order in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: A cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at two hospitals located in the Midwest. DNACPR code status orders including, DNI orders, demographics, labs, COVID-19 treatments, clinical interventions during hospitalization, and outcome measures including mortality, discharge disposition, and hospice utilization were collected. Patients were divided into two time periods (early and late) by timing of hospitalization during the first wave of the pandemic (March-October 2020). Results: Among 1375 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 19% (n = 258) of all patients had a documented DNACPR and/or DNI order. In multivariable analysis, age (older) p =< 0.01, OR 1.12 and hospitalization early in the pandemic p = 0.01, OR 2.08, were associated with having a DNACPR order. Median day from DNACPR order to death varied between cohorts p => 0.01 (early cohort 5 days versus late cohort 2 days). In-hospital mortality did not differ between cohorts among patients with DNACPR orders, p = 0.80. Conclusions: There was a higher prevalence of DNACPR and/or DNI orders and these orders were written earlier in the hospital course for patients hospitalized early in the pandemic versus later despite similarities in clinical characteristics and medical interventions. Changes in clinical care between cohorts may be due to fear of resource shortages and changes in knowledge about COVID-19.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The distinct illness trajectory after acute ischemic stroke demands a better understanding of the utilization of palliative care consultations (PCC) for this patient cohort. This study sought to determine the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes associated with PCC for patients hospitalized with severe ischemic stroke. METHODS: This multicenter cohort study was conducted at four hospitals (2 comprehensive and 2 primary stroke centers) between January, 2016 and December, 2019. We included all patients with a discharge diagnosis of ischemic stroke and an initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) of 10 or greater. We compared patient sociodemographic, clinical and care characteristics as well as hospital outcomes between patients who did and did not receive PCC. RESULTS: The study included 1297 patients hospitalized with severe ischemic stroke. PCC occurred for 20% of all patients and this proportion varied across institutions from 11.9% to 43%. Less than half (43%) of patients who died in the hospital. In multivaraible analysis, PCC was less likely in female patients (OR .76, 95% CI .59, .99, P=0.04) but more likely in patients with higher NIHSS (OR1.95, 95% CI 1,13, 3.37, P=0.02). Patients with PCC had higher rates of moving to a plan focused on comfort measures (CMO) (P<0.01) and removal of artificial nutrition as part of a move to CMO (P<0.01). In a sub analysis of patients who died in the hospital and received PCC, patients who died on or before hospital day 3 were less likely to receive PCC than patients who died on or after hospital day 4 (24% v. 51%) (P=<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with severe stroke do not receive PCC, even among those who experience in-hospital death. The results of this study indicate there are missed opportunities for PCC to help reduce suffering after severe stroke.