Physicians' experiences and perceptions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians' experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022). RESULTS: Among 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient's preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients' quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families' request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment. CONCLUSION: Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient's preferences and medical conditions and families' requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values.

Combined baseline HBcrAg and end-of-treatment HBsAg predict HBV relapse after entecavir or tenofovir cessation.

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), the optimal stopping criteria for entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment remain unclear. METHODS: This study recruited CHB patients with levels of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) <100 IU/mL at the end of treatment (EOT) from Kaohsiung (n = 190) and Linkou (n = 188) Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals for use as development and validation groups, respectively. RESULTS: In the development group, 108 patients with HBsAg ≤40 IU/mL were used for analysis of predictors of HBV relapse and HBsAg loss. Multivariate analysis showed that age, nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)-experienced status, baseline hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) and HBsAg at EOT were associated independently with virological and clinical relapse. An HBsAg level of 20 IU/mL at EOT was the best cut-off value for minimizing HBV relapse. Patients with EOT HBsAg ≤20 IU/mL had lower virological and clinical relapse rates and higher HBsAg loss rates than those with EOT HBsAg 21-40 IU/mL and HBsAg 41-100 IU/mL in the development and validation groups. The virological and clinical relapse rates were very low (5-year rates: 6.5% and 0%, respectively) and HBsAg loss rate was very high (5-year rate: 81.7%) in patients with a combination of baseline HBcrAg ≤4 log U/mL and EOT HBsAg ≤20 IU/mL in the development group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of baseline HBcrAg ≤4 log U/mL and EOT HBsAg level ≤20 IU/mL might reduce the risk of HBV relapse and increase HBsAg loss rate, and might be helpful for off-NA follow-up strategy.

Should Antiplatelet Therapy Be Withheld Perioperatively? The First Study Examining Outcomes in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in the Lower Extremity Free Flap Population.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet agents are typically withheld perioperatively because of bleeding concerns. Dual antiplatelet therapy, such as aspirin and clopidogrel, has significant morbidity and mortality benefits in patients with ischemic heart disease or peripheral vascular disease. This study aims to evaluate the impact of perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy in the lower extremity free tissue transfer population. METHODS: Lower extremity free tissue transfers performed by the senior author (K.K.E.) from 2011 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy, and free tissue transfer characteristics were recorded. Outcomes of interest included flap success, hematoma formation, blood transfusion requirements, and cardiac event occurrence. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five free tissue transfers were included. Median age at the time of free tissue transfer was 56.5 years. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Thirty-four patients were on clopidogrel, which was either withheld (n = 20) or continued (n = 14) on the day of free tissue transfer. Incidence of blood transfusion was significantly higher in both the withheld and continued versus nonclopidogrel groups. Flap success was statistically equivalent between groups (withheld, 90.0 percent; continued, 92.9 percent; nonclopidogrel, 95.0 percent; p = 0.346). Cardiac events occurred most often in the continued group (21.4 percent) compared to the withheld (5.0 percent) and nonclopidogrel (0.6 percent) groups. On multivariate analysis, holding clopidogrel remained significant for increased odds of postoperative transfusion. The clopidogrel group was no longer significant for intraoperative transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increases in volume of blood products transfused, free tissue transfer can be performed safely with perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy. Withholding dual antiplatelet therapy on the day of free tissue transfer was not associated with decreased intraoperative transfusion; thus, dual antiplatelet therapy can safely be continued throughout the operative course to minimize cardiovascular risk. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Safety and Feasibility of a Protocolized Daily Assessment of Readiness for Liberation From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the earliest and safest possible time may improve outcomes and reduce cost. Yet, no prospective studies have compared weaning strategies for liberation from ECMO. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is a protocolized daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO safe and feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm safety and feasibility study of a protocol for daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO among consecutive adult patients receiving venovenous ECMO across four ICUs at a single center between June 20, 2020, and November 24, 2020. The ECMO-free protocol included three phases: (1) the safety screening, (2) non-ECMO Fio2 titration, and (3) the ECMO-free trial. Enrollment, interventions, and data collection were performed prospectively by trained study staff. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients received the ECMO-free protocol on 385 patient-days. The safety screening was passed during a total of 59 ECMO-free daily assessments (15.3%) among 20 patients. Every passed safety screening proceeded to an ECMO-free trial. Twenty-eight passed ECMO-free trials (47.5%) occurred among 16 patients (61.5%). No missed safety screenings, protocol deviations, or adverse events occurred. Of the 16 patients who passed an ECMO-free trial, 14 patients (87.5%) were decannulated. Among decannulated patients, 12 patients (85.7%) were decannulated on the same day as a passed ECMO-free trial, 6 patients (42.9%) were decannulated on the first day that they passed an ECMO-free trial, and 6 patients (42.9%) passed an ECMO-free trial at least twice consecutively before decannulation. The median time from first passed ECMO-free trial to decannulation was 2 days (interquartile range, 0-3 days). INTERPRETATION: The ECMO-free protocol is feasible and may identify patients for decannulation earlier than gradual approaches to weaning.

Premature Discontinuation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Veterans: Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes.

Background Premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention is related to higher short-term risks of adverse outcomes. Whether these risks persist in the long-term is uncertain. Methods and Results We assessed all patients having percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary second- or first-generation drug-eluting stents in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system between 2006 and 2012 who were free of major ischemic or bleeding events in the first 12 months. The characteristics of patients who stopped DAPT prematurely (1-9 months duration), compared with >9 to 12 months, or extended duration (>12 months) were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) from multivariable logistic models. The risk of adverse clinical outcomes over a mean 5.1 years in patients who stopped DAPT prematurely was assessed by hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs from Cox regression models. A total of 14 239 had second-generation drug-eluting stents, and 8583 had first-generation drug-eluting stents. Premature discontinuation of DAPT was more likely in Black patients (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68), patients with greater frailty (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), and patients with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and less likely in patients on statins (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95). Patients who stopped DAPT prematurely had higher long-term risks of death (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.56), myocardial infarction (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74), and repeated coronary revascularization (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.41). Conclusions Patients who stop DAPT prematurely have features that reflect greater frailty, poorer medication use, and other social factors. They continue to have higher risks of major adverse outcomes over the long-term and may require more intensive surveillance many years after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with advanced melanoma: the multicentre prospective Safe Stop trial.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response. METHODS: The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs. DISCUSSION: From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018.

[Reducing the use of medication in the elderly; why or why not?] / Medicatie minderen bij ouderen.

Many healthcare providers agree that reduction or stopping of medication, so-called deprescribing, would be good in vulnerable people with polypharmacy. However, deprescribing is not yet widely conducted. Physicians and pharmacists experience barriers, such as lack of evidence and guidance to support this process. There is also a tendency to maintain the status quo when there are no acute problems. Patients do want fewer pills but the proposal to stop certain medication can lead to resistance or confusion. The needs and concerns from a patient's perspective are a good starting point for desprescribing. It is important to set new goals and to prioritize together which medication can be stopped. It is not only relevant to react to existing problems but also to act proactively when the potential benefits no longer outweigh the medication burden or risks. Recently, more guidance and tools to support deprescribing became available in the Netherlands.

Lung ultrasound score as an indicator of dynamic lung compliance during veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation.

Decisions on weaning from veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) requires the ability to maintain adequate gas exchange and work of breathing with reductions in ECMO pump flow and fresh gas flow. Testing of the readiness to wean the patient from ECMO however may vary dependent upon local protocols and clinical judgment. This study sought to validate the use of the LUS-score during VV-ECMO against the changes in chest x-ray infiltrates, dynamic lung compliance (CLdyn) and VV-ECMO settings (as standard measures of native lung function and the level of ECMO support) during the ECMO cycle. This prospective cohort study of 10 patients on VV-ECMO compared the LUS score (range 0-36) within 48-h, day 5 and day 10 of commencement of ECMO (or on the day of ECMO decannulation) to dynamic lung compliance, Murray Lung Injury Score and ECMO settings. Seven Male and three Female patients were included (average age 37 years (SD 14.8) and weight 71 Kg (SD 16.9). Median (IQR) duration of ECMO, ICU and hospital length of stay was 7.5 days (5.2-19.0), 12.5 days (8.5-22.7), 19.0 days (12.1- 36.1), respectively. There was a strong negative association between LUS-score and dynamic lung compliance (rs(33) = -0.66, p < .001) providing some validation on the use of the LUS score as a potential surrogate measure of lung aeration and lung mechanics during VV-ECMO weaning.

ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and endothelial injury in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which uses angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) as a receptor for cellular entry. It is theorized that ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 by upregulating ACE-2 expression, but ACE-I/ARB discontinuation is associated with clinical deterioration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ACE-I and ARB use is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), macrovascular thrombosis and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre study of 558 hospital inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted from 1 March to 30 April 2020, followed up until 24 May 2020. AKI and macrovascular thrombosis were primary end-points, and in-hospital mortality was a secondary end-point. RESULTS: AKI occurred in 126 (23.1%) patients, 34 (6.1%) developed macrovascular thrombi, and 200 (35.9%) died. Overlap propensity score-weighted analysis showed no significant effect of ACE-I/ARB use on the risk of occurrence of the specified end-points. On exploratory analysis, severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases odds of macrovascular thrombi (OR: 8.237, 95% CI: 1.689-40.181, P = 0.009). The risk of AKI increased with advancing age (OR: 1.028, 95% CI: 1.011-1.044, P = 0.001) and diabetes (OR: 1.675, 95% CI: 1.065-2.633, P = 0.025). Immunosuppression was associated with lower risk of AKI (OR: 0.160, 95% CI: 0.029-0.886, P = 0.036). Advancing age, dependence on care, male gender and eGFR < 60 mL min-1 /1.73 m2 increased odds of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: We did not identify an association between ACE-I/ARB use and AKI, macrovascular thrombi or mortality. This supports the recommendations of the European and American Societies of Cardiology that ACE-Is and ARBs should not be discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Allocating medical resources fairly: the CSG bioethics guide / Asignación justa de recursos médicos: guía bioética del CSG

Abstract On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have preference over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources.

Resumen El 12 de abril de 2020, se publicó en el sitio web del Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) del Gobierno de México una guía de bioética para asignar recursos hospitalarios escasos durante la actual pandemia de Covid-19. La guía titulada Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia pretendía ser un documento preliminar, pero la publicación en el sitio web no lo describió como un primer paso en el proceso. La publicación resultó en una amplia gama de comentarios y críticas. La primera versión publicada en el sitio web del CSG contenía un criterio basado en la edad para romper el empate entre dos o más pacientes médicamente elegibles que necesitaran un ventilador: los pacientes más jóvenes tendrían preferencia sobre los de mayor edad. La versión final de la guía eliminó ese criterio y, en cambio, se basó en el principio principal de salud pública, "salvar la mayoría de las vidas", sin tener en cuenta las características personales que no sean la posibilidad de beneficiarse de los escasos recursos médicos.

Guía bioética de asignación de recursos de medicina crítica del Consejo de Salubridad General en México / Bioethics guide on scarce medical resource allocation in Mexico

Resumen El tema bioético sobre la asignación de recursos escasos no es nuevo, todos los países que han sido gravemente afectados por el SARS-CoV-2 han tenido que desarrollar y utilizar guías de triaje. Esto resulta más adecuado pues así la asignación de recursos limitados se hace de manera ética y justa, y no de manera discrecional y abierta a la corrupción. En México, en anticipación a la fase exponencial de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, el 30 de abril el Consejo de Salubridad General publicó la Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia. Dicha guía tiene como base criterios de justicia social y parte de la tesis: todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor. Este texto tiene como objetivo proporcionar las razones bioéticas y biojurídicas que conforman esta guía de triaje en nuestro país. En resumen, proporciona una breve exploración de las razones éticas que justifican cierta manera específica de asignar recursos escasos en medicina crítica, así como del sustento procedimental apegado a los estándares en materia de derechos humanos.

Abstract The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethical guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach.

Predictors of the Response to Dopaminergic Therapy in Patients With Prolactinoma.

PURPOSE: Withdrawal of dopamine agonist (DA) therapy in patients with prolactinoma who are controlled by a small dose of medication is recommended by several guidelines. So far, the likelihood of reaching withdrawal conditions based on baseline characteristics remains uncertain. METHODS: We retrospectively examined early clinical, radiological, or biochemical features that may predict the likelihood of reaching withdrawal conditions in prolactinoma patients. Data were obtained in a single academic medical center in the United States from patients seen between 2000 and 2018. Using multiple logistic regression, we compared patients who reached withdrawal conditions with those who did not. RESULTS: Of 213 patients, 78 (36.6%) reached withdrawal conditions after at least 2 years of DA treatment. Initial maximal tumor diameter was significantly smaller in those who reached withdrawal conditions than in those who did not. Percent prolactin change at the first check from initiation of DA therapy and parasellar invasiveness were predictors of reaching withdrawal conditions. With constant independent variables, there was a 7% increase in odds for reaching withdrawal conditions for every 1% decrease in percent prolactin change at first check after DA therapy start (P = 0.0000). Parasellar invasion decreased the odds of reaching withdrawal conditions by 84% (P = 0.0000). CONCLUSIONS: DA remains a potential life-long treatment modality for most prolactinoma patients. Patients with parasellar invasiveness and low prolactin percent change from baseline to first prolactin check are more likely to require long-term treatment.

Improving guideline-mandated care of patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Implantable cardiac defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in selected patients. The value of an implantable cardiac defibrillator declines as the patient's disease progresses. Guidelines suggest that the appropriateness of maintaining implantable cardiac defibrillator therapy be regularly reviewed as part of monitoring of the patient's disease trajectory. It is recommended that implantable cardiac defibrillators are deactivated as patients approach the end of life. Patients with a better understanding of their current state of health and the role that the implantable cardiac defibrillator plays within it are more likely to make informed decisions about the timing of deactivation. METHODS: A quality improvement project was undertaken on appropriate deactivation of implantable cardiac defibrillators within a large tertiary cardiac centre. This was driven by audit data showing inadequate patient communication and documentation around deactivation. Drivers for change included the introduction of electronic data records, clinical review of comorbid patients approaching elective battery change and an ongoing forum for patient and carer education. Measured outcomes included the number of deactivations performed, evidence of patient discussion and consent, and timing of deactivation of the implantable cardiac defibrillator. RESULTS: There were increased numbers of timely device deactivations undertaken following the interventions with improved documented evidence of patient discussion and consent. The educational forum was received favourably. CONCLUSIONS: Focused multidisciplinary interventions can impact favourably on appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator deactivation and improve patient engagement.

Thrombosis of a Percutaneous Transcatheter Mitral Valve Implant and Its Treatment.

Bioprosthetic heart valves do not usually require formal anticoagulation as they are less thrombogenic than their mechanical counterparts. However, valve thrombosis has been reported after both transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Short-term anticoagulation after surgical bioprosthesis implantation is often recommended while endothelialisation of the prosthesis takes place, particularly for mitral valve implants. There have been no reports of tissue heart valve thrombosis in transcatheter mitral valve replacement. We describe our experience and successful treatment of such a case.

[Bioethics guide on scarce medical resource allocation in Mexico]. / Guía bioética de asignación de recursos de medicina crítica del Consejo de Salubridad General en México.

The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethi-cal guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach.

El tema bioético sobre la asignación de recursos escasos no es nuevo, todos los países que han sido gravemente afectados por el SARS-CoV-2 han tenido que desarrollar y utilizar guías de triaje. Esto resulta más adecuado pues así la asignación de recursos limitados se hace de manera ética y justa, y no de manera discrecional y abierta a la corrupción. En México, en anticipación a la fase exponencial de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, el 30 de abril el Consejo de Salubridad General publicó la Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia. Dicha guía tiene como base criterios de justicia social y parte de la tesis: todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor. Este texto tiene como objetivo propor-cionar las razones bioéticas y biojurídicas que conforman esta guía de triaje en nuestro país. En resumen, proporciona una breve exploración de las razones éticas que justifican cierta manera específica de asignar recursos escasos en medicina crítica, así como del sustento procedimental apegado a los estándares en materia de derechos humanos.

Allocating medical resources fairly:the CSG bioethics guide.

On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General(CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have prefer-ence over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources.

El 12 de abril de 2020, se publicó en el sitio web del Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) del Gobierno de México una guía de bioética para asignar recursos hospitalarios escasos durante la actual pandemia de Covid-19. La guía titulada Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia pretendía ser un documento pre-liminar, pero la publicación en el sitio web no lo describió como un primer paso en el proceso. La publicación resultó en una amplia gama de comentarios y críticas. La primera versión publicada en el sitio web del CSG contenía un cri-terio basado en la edad para romper el empate entre dos o más pacientes médicamente elegibles que necesitaran un ventilador: los pacientes más jóvenes tendrían preferencia sobre los de mayor edad. La versión final de la guía eliminó ese criterio y, en cambio, se basó en el principio principal de salud pública, "salvar la mayoría de las vidas", sin tener en cuenta las características personales que no sean la posibilidad de beneficiarse de los escasos recursos médicos.