Derivation and performance of an end-of-life practice score aimed at interpreting worldwide treatment-limiting decisions in the critically ill.

BACKGROUND: Limitations of life-sustaining interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) exhibit substantial changes over time, and large, contemporary variation across world regions. We sought to determine whether a weighted end-of-life practice score can explain a large, contemporary, worldwide variation in limitation decisions. METHODS: The 2015-2016 (Ethicus-2) vs. 1999-2000 (Ethicus-1) comparison study was a two-period, prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 4952 patients from 22 European ICUs. The worldwide Ethicus-2 study was a single-period prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 12,200 patients from 199 ICUs situated in 8 world regions. Binary end-of-life practice variable data (1 = presence; 0 = absence) were collected post hoc (comparison study, 22/22 ICUs, n = 4592; worldwide study, 186/199 ICUs, n = 11,574) for family meetings, daily deliberation for appropriate level of care, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings, written triggers for limitations, written ICU end-of-life guidelines and protocols, palliative care and ethics consultations, ICU-staff taking communication or bioethics courses, and national end-of-life guidelines and legislation. Regarding the comparison study, generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis was used to determine associations between the 12 end-of-life practice variables and treatment limitations. The weighted end-of-life practice score was then calculated using GEE-derived coefficients of the end-of-life practice variables. Subsequently, the weighted end-of-life practice score was validated in GEE analysis using the worldwide study dataset. RESULTS: In comparison study GEE analyses, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings [odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.99], end-of-life guidelines [OR 0.52, (0.31-0.87)] and protocols [OR 15.08, (3.88-58.59)], palliative care consultations [OR 2.63, (1.23-5.60)] and end-of-life legislation [OR 3.24, 1.60-6.55)] were significantly associated with limitation decisions (all P < 0.05). In worldwide GEE analyses, the weighted end-of-life practice score was significantly associated with limitation decisions [OR 1.12 (1.03-1.22); P = 0.008]. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison study-derived, weighted end-of-life practice score partly explained the worldwide study's variation in treatment limitations. The most important components of the weighted end-of-life practice score were ICU end-of-life protocols, palliative care consultations, and country end-of-life legislation.

[Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions]. / Ethik der Reanimation und Entscheidungen am Lebensende: Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2021.

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

Changes in End-of-Life Practices in European Intensive Care Units From 1999 to 2016.

IMPORTANCE: End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time. OBJECTIVE: To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision. EXPOSURES: Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists. RESULTS: Of 13 625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P < .001) and the proportion of female patients was similar (39.6% vs 38.7%; P = .58). Significantly more treatment limitations occurred in the 2015-2016 cohort compared with the 1999-2000 cohort (1601 [89.7%] vs 1918 [68.3%]; difference, 21.4% [95% CI, 19.2% to 23.6%]; P < .001), with more withholding of life-prolonging therapy (892 [50.0%] vs 1143 [40.7%]; difference, 9.3% [95% CI, 6.4% to 12.3%]; P < .001), more withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy (692 [38.8%] vs 695 [24.8%]; difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 11.2% to 16.8%]; P < .001), less failed CPR (110 [6.2%] vs 628 [22.4%]; difference, -16.2% [95% CI, -18.1% to -14.3%]; P < .001), less brain death (74 [4.1%] vs 261 [9.3%]; difference, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.6% to -3.8%]; P < .001) and less active shortening of the dying process (17 [1.0%] vs 80 [2.9%]; difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -2.7% to -1.1%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients who had treatment limitations or died in 22 European ICUs in 2015-2016, compared with data reported from the same ICUs in 1999-2000, limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly more frequently and death without limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly less frequently. These findings suggest a shift in end-of-life practices in European ICUs, but the study is limited in that it excluded patients who survived ICU hospitalization without treatment limitations.

Exposure to Stress-Dose Steroids and Lethal Septic Shock After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Individual Patient Data Reanalysis of Two Prior Randomized Clinical Trials that Evaluated the Vasopressin-Steroids-Epinephrine Combination Versus Epinephrine Alone.

PURPOSE: Low-dose steroids may reduce the mortality of severely ill patients with septic shock. We sought to determine whether exposure to stress-dose steroids during and/or after cardiopulmonary resuscitation is associated with reduced risk of death due to postresuscitation septic shock. METHODS: We analyzed pooled, individual patient data from two prior, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs evaluated vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine (VSE) during resuscitation and stress-dose steroids after resuscitation in vasopressor-requiring, in-hospital cardiac arrest. In the second RCT, 15 control group patients received open-label, stress-dose steroids. Patients with postresuscitation shock were assigned to a Steroids (n = 118) or No Steroids (n = 73) group according to an "as-treated" principle. We used cumulative incidence competing risks Cox regression to determine cause-specific hazard ratios (CSHRs) for pre-specified predictors of lethal septic shock (primary outcome). In sensitivity analyses, data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle (VSE group, n = 103; control group, n = 88). RESULTS: Lethal septic shock was less likely in Steroids versus No Steroids group, CSHR, 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.82; p = 0.012. ITT analysis yielded similar results: VSE versus Control, CSHR, 0.44, 95% CI, 0.23-0.87; p = 0.019. Adjustment for significant, between-group baseline differences in composite cardiac arrest causes such as "hypotension and/or myocardial ischemia" did not appreciably affect the aforementioned CSHRs. CONCLUSIONS: In this reanalysis, exposure to stress-dose steroids (primarily in the context of a combined VSE intervention) was associated with lower risk of postresuscitation lethal septic shock.

Publisher Correction: Exposure to Stress-Dose Steroids and Lethal Septic Shock After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Individual Patient Data Reanalysis of Two Prior Randomized Clinical Trials that Evaluated the Vasopressin-Steroids-Epinephrine Combination Versus Epinephrine Alone.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. In Table 2, the frequency of Septic Shock reported just below the frequency of "At least 1 Episode of VAP" actually corresponds to the First (and not the Second) Episode of VAP during the postresuscitation period.

Severity of Hypoxemia and Effect of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

RATIONALE: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is theoretically beneficial for lung protection, but the results of clinical trials are inconsistent, with study-level meta-analyses suggesting no significant effect on mortality. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to identify acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patient subgroups with differential outcomes from HFOV. METHODS: After a comprehensive search for trials, two reviewers independently identified randomized trials comparing HFOV with conventional ventilation for adults with ARDS. Prespecified effect modifiers were tested using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models, adjusting for important prognostic factors and clustering effects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data from 1,552 patients in four trials were analyzed, applying uniform definitions for study variables and outcomes. Patients had a mean baseline PaO2/FiO2 of 114 ± 39 mm Hg; 40% had severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 <100 mm Hg). Mortality at 30 days was 321 of 785 (40.9%) for HFOV patients versus 288 of 767 (37.6%) for control subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.46; P = 0.16). This treatment effect varied, however, depending on baseline severity of hypoxemia (P = 0.0003), with harm increasing with PaO2/FiO2 among patients with mild-moderate ARDS, and the possibility of decreased mortality in patients with very severe ARDS. Compliance and body mass index did not modify the treatment effect. HFOV increased barotrauma risk compared with conventional ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.96; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: HFOV increases mortality for most patients with ARDS but may improve survival among patients with severe hypoxemia on conventional mechanical ventilation.

Limitations of life-sustaining therapies in South Africa.

PURPOSE: Limitations of life sustaining therapies (LLST) are frequent in intensive care units (ICUs), but no previous studies have examined end-of-life (EOL) care and LLST in South Africa (SA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated LLST in SA from the data of a prospective, international, multicentre, observational study (Ethicus-2) and compared practices with countries in the rest of the world. RESULTS: LLST was relatively common in SA, and withholding was more frequent than withdrawing therapy. However, withdrawing and withholding therapy were less common, while failed CPR was more common, than in many other countries. No patients had an advance directive. Primary reasons for LLST in SA were poor quality of life, multisystem organ failure and patients' unresponsiveness to maximal therapy. Primary considerations for EOL decision-making were good medical practice and patients' best-interest, with the need for an ICU bed only rarely considered. CONCLUSIONS: Withholding was more common than withdrawing treatment both in SA and worldwide, although both were significantly less frequent in SA compared with the world average.

Emergency research without prior consent in the United States, Canada, European Union and United Kingdom: How regulatory differences affect study design and implementation in cardiac arrest trials.

Aim: A major barrier to performing cardiac arrest trials is the requirement for prospective informed consent, which is often infeasible during individual medical emergencies. In an effort to improve outcomes, some governments have adopted legislation permitting research without prior consent (RWPC) in these circumstances. We aimed to outline key differences between legislation in four Western locations and explore the effects of these differences on trial design and implementation in cardiac arrest research. Data sources: We performed a narrative review of RWPC legislation in the United States (US), Canada, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK). Results: The primary criteria required to perform RWPC was similar across locations: the study must involve an individual medical emergency during which neither the prospective subject nor their authorized representative can provide informed consent. The US regulations were unique in their requirements for performing Community Consultation and Public Disclosure in the communities in which the research takes place. Another major difference was the requirement for consent for ongoing participation in Canada, the EU and the UK, while only notification of enrollment and the opportunity to discontinue participation are required in the US. Additionally, only Canada and the EU explicitly state that the subject or their representative may request withdrawal of their data. Conclusion: Regulations governing RWPC in the US, Canada, the EU and the UK have similar goals and protections for vulnerable populations during medical emergencies. Differences in the qualifying criteria and implementation procedures exist across locations and may affect study design.

High-frequency oscillation and tracheal gas insufflation in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and traumatic brain injury: an interventional physiological study.

INTRODUCTION: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), combined high-frequency oscillation (HFO) and tracheal gas insufflation (TGI) improves gas exchange compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). We evaluated the effect of HFO-TGI on PaO2/fractional inspired O2 (FiO2) and PaCO2, systemic hemodynamics, intracranial pressure (ICP), and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and concurrent severe ARDS. METHODS: We studied 13 TBI/ARDS patients requiring anesthesia, hyperosmolar therapy, and ventilation with moderate-to-high CMV-tidal volumes for ICP control. Patients had PaO2/FiO2 <100 mm Hg at end-expiratory pressure ≥10 cm H2O. Patients received consecutive, daily, 12-hour rescue sessions of HFO-TGI interspersed with 12-hour periods of CMV. HFO-TGI was discontinued when the post-HFO-TGI PaO2/FiO2 exceeded 100 mm Hg for >12 hours. Arterial/central-venous blood gases, hemodynamics, and ICP were recorded before, during (every 4 hours), and after HFO-TGI, and were analyzed by using repeated measures analysis of variance. Respiratory mechanics were assessed before and after HFO-TGI. RESULTS: Each patient received three to four HFO-TGI sessions (total sessions, n = 43). Pre-HFO-TGI PaO2/FiO2 (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 83.2 ± 15.5 mm Hg) increased on average by approximately 130% to163% during HFO-TGI (P < 0.01) and remained improved by approximately 73% after HFO-TGI (P < 0.01). Pre-HFO-TGI CMV plateau pressure (30.4 ± 4.5 cm H2O) and respiratory compliance (37.8 ± 9.2 ml/cm H2O), respectively, improved on average by approximately 7.5% and 20% after HFO-TGI (P < 0.01 for both). During HFO-TGI, systemic hemodynamics remained unchanged. Transient improvements were observed after 4 hours of HFO-TGI versus pre-HFO-TGI CMV in PaCO2 (37.7 ± 9.9 versus 41.2 ± 10.8 mm Hg; P < 0.01), ICP (17.2 ± 5.4 versus 19.7 ± 5.9 mm Hg; P < 0.05), and CPP (77.2 ± 14.6 versus 71.9 ± 14.8 mm Hg; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In TBI/ARDS patients, HFO-TGI may improve oxygenation and respiratory mechanics, without adversely affecting PaCO2, hemodynamics, or ICP. These findings support the use of HFO-TGI as a rescue ventilatory strategy in patients with severe TBI and imminent oxygenation failure due to severe ARDS.

Vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine and neurologically favorable survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Among patients with cardiac arrest, preliminary data have shown improved return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge with the vasopressin-steroids-epinephrine (VSE) combination. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether combined vasopressin-epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and corticosteroid supplementation during and after CPR improve survival to hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2 in vasopressor-requiring, in-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial performed from September 1, 2008, to October 1, 2010, in 3 Greek tertiary care centers (2400 beds) with 268 consecutive patients with cardiac arrest requiring epinephrine according to resuscitation guidelines (from 364 patients assessed for eligibility). INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either vasopressin (20 IU/CPR cycle) plus epinephrine (1 mg/CPR cycle; cycle duration approximately 3 minutes) (VSE group, n = 130) or saline placebo plus epinephrine (1 mg/CPR cycle; cycle duration approximately 3 minutes) (control group, n = 138) for the first 5 CPR cycles after randomization, followed by additional epinephrine if needed. During the first CPR cycle after randomization, patients in the VSE group received methylprednisolone (40 mg) and patients in the control group received saline placebo. Shock after resuscitation was treated with stress-dose hydrocortisone (300 mg daily for 7 days maximum and gradual taper) (VSE group, n = 76) or saline placebo (control group, n = 73). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for 20 minutes or longer and survival to hospital discharge with a CPC score of 1 or 2. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed in all resuscitated patients. Patients in the VSE group vs patients in the control group had higher probability for ROSC of 20 minutes or longer (109/130 [83.9%] vs 91/138 [65.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.98; 95% CI, 1.39-6.40; P = .005) and survival to hospital discharge with CPC score of 1 or 2 (18/130 [13.9%] vs 7/138 [5.1%]; OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.17-9.20; P = .02). Patients in the VSE group with postresuscitation shock vs corresponding patients in the control group had higher probability for survival to hospital discharge with CPC scores of 1 or 2 (16/76 [21.1%] vs 6/73 [8.2%]; OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.20-11.62; P = .02), improved hemodynamics and central venous oxygen saturation, and less organ dysfunction. Adverse event rates were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with cardiac arrest requiring vasopressors, combined vasopressin-epinephrine and methylprednisolone during CPR and stress-dose hydrocortisone in postresuscitation shock, compared with epinephrine/saline placebo, resulted in improved survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurological status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729794.

General Critical Care, Temperature Control, and End-of-Life Decision Making in Patients Resuscitated from Cardiac Arrest.

Cardiac arrest affects millions of people per year worldwide. Although advances in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intensive care have improved outcomes over time, neurologic impairment and multiple organ dysfunction continue to be associated with a high mortality rate. The pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the post-resuscitation disease are complex, and a coordinated, evidence-based approach to post-resuscitation care has significant potential to improve survival. Critical care management of patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest focuses on the identification and treatment of the underlying cause(s), hemodynamic and respiratory support, organ protection, and active temperature control. This review provides a state-of-the-art appraisal of critical care management of the post-cardiac arrest patient.

Key Advances in Intensive Care and the Coronavirus Disease-19 Research and Practice Boost.

Components of intensive care include resuscitation, cardiorespiratory stabilization, reversal of organ/system dysfunction or failure, treatment of the underlying pathology, weaning from external support of vital organs, and supportive interventions (e [...].

Second- and Third-Tier Therapies for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Intracranial hypertension is a common finding in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. These patients need treatment in the intensive care unit, where intracranial pressure monitoring and, whenever possible, multimodal neuromonitoring can be applied. A three-tier approach is suggested in current recommendations, in which higher-tier therapies have more significant side effects. In this review, we explain the rationale for this approach, and analyze the benefits and risks of each therapeutic modality. Finally, we discuss, based on the most recent recommendations, how this approach can be adapted in low- and middle-income countries, where available resources are limited.

Evolution of European Resuscitation and End-of-Life Practices from 2015 to 2019: A Survey-Based Comparative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In concordance with the results of large, observational studies, a 2015 European survey suggested variation in resuscitation/end-of-life practices and emergency care organization across 31 countries. The current survey-based study aimed to comparatively assess the evolution of practices from 2015 to 2019, especially in countries with "low" (i.e., average or lower) 2015 questionnaire domain scores. METHODS: The 2015 questionnaire with additional consensus-based questions was used. The 2019 questionnaire covered practices/decisions related to end-of-life care (domain A); determinants of access to resuscitation/post-resuscitation care (domain B); diagnosis of death/organ donation (domain C); and emergency care organization (domain D). Responses from 25 countries were analyzed. Positive or negative responses were graded by 1 or 0, respectively. Domain scores were calculated by summation of practice-specific response grades. RESULTS: Domain A and B scores for 2015 and 2019 were similar. Domain C score decreased by 1 point [95% confidence interval (CI): 1-3; p = 0.02]. Domain D score increased by 2.6 points (95% CI: 0.2-5.0; p = 0.035); this improvement was driven by countries with "low" 2015 domain D scores. In countries with "low" 2015 domain A scores, domain A score increased by 5.5 points (95% CI: 0.4-10.6; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In 2019, improvements in emergency care organization and an increasing frequency of end-of-life practices were observed primarily in countries with previously "low" scores in the corresponding domains of the 2015 questionnaire.