Prognosis After Emergency Department Intubation to Inform Shared Decision-Making.

OBJECTIVES: To inform the shared decision-making process between clinicians and older adults and their surrogates regarding emergency intubation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter, emergency department (ED)-based cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 65 and older intubated in the ED from 2008 to 2015 from 262 hospitals across the United States (>95% of U.S. nonprofit academic medical centers). MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was age-specific in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were age-specific odds of death after adjusting for race, comorbid conditions, admission diagnosis, hospital disposition, and geographic region. RESULTS: We identified 41,463 ED intubation encounters and included 35,036 in the final analysis. Sixty-four percent were in non-Hispanic whites and 54% in women. Overall in-hospital mortality was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI)=34-35%). Twenty-four percent (95% CI=24-25%) of subjects were discharged to home, and 41% (95% CI=40-42%) were discharged to a location other than home. Mortality was 29% (95% CI=28-29%) for individuals aged 65 to 74, 34% (95% CI=33-35%) for those aged 75 to 79, 40% (95% CI=39-41%) for those aged 80 to 84, 43% (95% CI=41-44%) for those aged 85 to 89, and 50% (95% CI=48-51%) for those aged 90 and older. CONCLUSION: After emergency intubation, 33% percent of older adults die during the index hospitalization. Only 24% of survivors are discharged to home. Simple, graphic representations of this information, in combination with an experienced clinician's overall clinical assessment, will support shared decision-making regarding unplanned intubation.

The "Surprise Question" Asked of Emergency Physicians May Predict 12-Month Mortality among Older Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Identification of older adults with serious illness (life expectancy less than one year) who may benefit from serious illness conversations or other palliative care interventions in the emergency department (ED) is difficult. OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the "surprise question (SQ)" asked of emergency physicians to predict 12-month mortality. DESIGN: We asked attending emergency physician "Would you be surprised whether this patient died in the next 12 months?" regarding patients ≥65 years old that they had cared for that shift. We prospectively obtained death records from Massachusetts Department of Health Vital Records. SETTING: An urban, university-affiliated ED. MEASUREMENT: Twelve-month mortality. RESULTS: We approached 38 physicians to answer the SQ, and 86% participated. The mean age of our cohort was 76 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one serious illness. Out of 207 patients, the physicians stated that they "would not be surprised" if the patient died in the next 12 months for 102 of the patients (49%); 44 of the 207 patients (21%) died within 12 months. The SQ demonstrated sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 32%, and negative predictive value of 90%. When combined with other predictors, the model sorted the patient who lived from the patient who died correctly 72% of the time (c-statistic = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Use of the SQ by emergency physicians may predict 12-month mortality in older ED patients and may help emergency physicians identify older adults in need of palliative care interventions.

Inferior vena cava collapsibility detects fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients.

PURPOSE: Measurement of inferior vena cava collapsibility (cIVC) by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as a viable, non-invasive means of assessing fluid responsiveness. We aimed to determine the ability of cIVC to identify patients who will respond to additional intravenous fluid (IVF) administration among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. METHODS: Prospective observational trial of spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. cIVC was obtained 3cm caudal from the right atrium and IVC junction using POCUS. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a≥10% increase in cardiac index following a 500ml IVF bolus; measured using bioreactance (NICOM™, Cheetah Medical). cIVC was compared with fluid responsiveness and a cIVC optimal value was identified. RESULTS: Of the 124 participants, 49% were fluid responders. cIVC was able to detect fluid responsiveness: AUC=0.84 [0.76, 0.91]. The optimum cutoff point for cIVC was identified as 25% (LR+ 4.56 [2.72, 7.66], LR- 0.16 [0.08, 0.31]). A cIVC of 25% produced a lower misclassification rate (16.1%) for determining fluid responsiveness than the previous suggested cutoff values of 40% (34.7%). CONCLUSION: IVC collapsibility, as measured by POCUS, performs well in distinguishing fluid responders from non-responders, and may be used to guide IVF resuscitation among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients.

Shared Decision Making to Support the Provision of Palliative and End-of-Life Care in the Emergency Department: A Consensus Statement and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the optimal use of shared decision making (SDM) to guide palliative and end-of-life decisions in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: The objective was to convene a working group to develop a set of research questions that, when answered, will substantially advance the ability of clinicians to use SDM to guide palliative and end-of-life care decisions in the ED. METHODS: Participants were identified based on expertise in emergency, palliative, or geriatrics care; policy or patient-advocacy; and spanned physician, nursing, social work, legal, and patient perspectives. Input from the group was elicited using a time-staggered Delphi process including three teleconferences, an open platform for asynchronous input, and an in-person meeting to obtain a final round of input from all members and to identify and resolve or describe areas of disagreement. CONCLUSION: Key research questions identified by the group related to which ED patients are likely to benefit from palliative care (PC), what interventions can most effectively promote PC in the ED, what outcomes are most appropriate to assess the impact of these interventions, what is the potential for initiating advance care planning in the ED to help patients define long-term goals of care, and what policies influence palliative and end-of-life care decision making in the ED. Answers to these questions have the potential to substantially improve the quality of care for ED patients with advanced illness.