Unintended Consequences of Code Status in the Intensive Care Unit: What Happens After a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order Is Placed? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Some clinicians suspect that patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders receive less aggressive care. Extrapolation from code status to goals of care could cause significant harm. This study asked the question: Do DNR orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) lead to a decrease in invasive interventions? Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of ICU patients from three teaching hospitals. All ICU patients were assessed for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were medical futility and death, comfort care, or ICU discharge <48 hours after DNR initiation. Five hundred thirty-six patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-five were included in the final analysis. Primary outcomes were occurrence of invasive interventions after DNR initiation-surgical operation, central line, ventilation, dialysis, or other procedure. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic administration, blood transfusion, mortality, and discharge location. Results: Patients with DNR orders underwent fewer surgical operations (14.5% vs. 31.1%, p = 0.002), but more central lines (42.1% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.009), ventilator use (49.0% vs. 18.9%, p < 0.001), and dialysis (20.0% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.002), compared with patients without DNR orders. Transfusions and antibiotic use decreased similarly over admission for both groups (transfusions: ß = 1.25; p = 0.59; and antibiotics: ß = 1.44; p = 0.27). Mortality and hospice discharges were higher for DNR patients (p < 0.001.). Conclusions: DNR status did not decrease the number of nonoperative interventions patients received as compared with full code counterparts. Although differences in populations existed, patients with DNR orders were likely to receive a similar number of invasive interventions. This finding suggests that providers do not wholesale limit these options for patients with code status limitations.

Severe Drug-Induced Liver Injury in the Military: A Retrospective Review.

OBJECTIVES: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Establishing a diagnosis is challenging due to the broad differential diagnosis of liver injury. We retrospectively reviewed patients with severe idiosyncratic DILI at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in order to define the scope and patterns of injury in the military population. METHODS: Using the military health database, we identified a total of 110 patients who had an International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 code for toxic liver injury in the electronic medical record at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center between 2016 and 2019. Each patient record was reviewed, and all pertinent data for included patients were recorded into a database for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven out of 110 patients with a diagnostic code for toxic liver injury met inclusion criteria for severe idiosyncratic DILI. Nine cases were caused by supplements, including 5 active duty service members using synthetic anabolic steroids or preworkout supplements. The majority of patients were men and one-third were serving on active duty. The ranges of liver enzyme elevation and patterns of liver injury widely varied. CONCLUSION: Military service members are at particularly high risk for DILI given the frequent use of over-the-counter and other unregulated strength- and performance-enhancing supplements. These injuries not only have significant medical consequences but can profoundly impact military readiness and mission capability. Diagnosis of DILI among active duty service members requires a strong index of suspicion, and inquiry regarding all ingestions is crucial. Educating physicians, providers, and policy makers on the risks of supplement-induced liver injury among service members is crucial. These data will facilitate additional studies exploring susceptibility to severe idiosyncratic DILI among the military population.

Care of the Hepatology Patient in the COVID-19 Era.

Background and Purpose of Review: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 800,000 deaths worldwide and resulted in fundamental changes in practice in nearly every aspect of medicine. The majority of symptomatic patients experience liver-associated enzyme (LAE) elevations which appear to be correlated to disease severity. Furthermore, there are unique considerations of COVID-19 on chronic liver disease. Background, including epidemiology, pathophysiologic mechanisms and therapeutics, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on specific chronic liver disease, is discussed. Findings: Studies suggest that degree of LAE elevation correlates with illness severity, although it is unclear whether this represents true liver injury. Numerous proposed treatments for COVID-19 have been linked with drug induced liver injury and may have clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Others may have unintended consequences on chronic liver disease treatment including reactivation of hepatitis B. The risk of severe COVID-19 in patients with chronic liver disease is largely unknown; metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease may be linked to higher risk for severe illness. Implications for cirrhosis of other etiologies, autoimmune hepatitis, and viral hepatitis are less well defined. The treatment of chronic liver disease has been severely impacted by the pandemic. The societal factors created by the pandemic have led to decreased in person visits, evolving access to invasive screening modalities, food and financial insecurity, and likely increased alcohol use. Conclusions: The impacts of COVID-19 on the liver range from a potential increased risk of severe infection in chronic liver disease patients, to hepatotoxic effects of proposed treatments, to second and third order impacts on the care of patients with chronic liver disease.

Perceptions of care following initiation of do-not-resuscitate orders.

PURPOSE: Documenting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) can be controversial; some providers believe that DNR orders change care. This survey evaluates current perceptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approved survey consisting of 31 validated questions divided into 3 factors (1. palliation, 2. active treatment, and 3. trust/communication). Individual questions were compared using Fisher's exact-tests and factors were compared via t-tests. RESULTS: Both surgical and ICU staff believe care decreases after DNR order initiation (43%). More surgical staff report decreased care aggressiveness versus ICU staff (63% vs 25%, p < 0.005 and Factor 2, 25.8 versus 29.8, p < 0.001), and felt that electrical cardioversion outside of the setting of ACLS would not be performed (57% vs 24%, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical staff expressed more concern about care after DNR status than their ICU counterparts. Determining whether care actually changes clinically warrants further investigation.

Perceptions of ICU Care Following Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A Military Perspective.

Although do-not-resuscitate orders only prohibit cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest, the common initiation of this code status in the context of end-of-life care may lead providers to draw premature conclusions about other goals of care. The aim of this study is to identify concerns regarding care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate orders within the Department of Defense and compare differences in perceptions between members of the critical care team. DESIGN: A cross sectional observational study was conducted. SETTING: This study took place in the setting of critical care within the Department of Defense. SUBJECTS: All members of the Uniformed Services Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were invited to participate. INTERVENTIONS: A validated 31-question survey exploring the perceptions of care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate status was distributed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis was used to categorically group survey questions, and average factor scores were compared between respondent groups using t tests. Responses to individual questions were also analyzed between comparison groups using Fisher exact tests. Factor analysis revealed no significant differences between respondents of different training backgrounds; however, those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to agree that active treatment would be pursued (p = 0.024) and that trust and communication would be maintained (p = 0.005). Although 38% of all respondents worry that quality of care will decrease, 93% agree that life-prolonging treatments should be offered. About a third of providers wrongly believed that a do-not-resuscitate order must be reversed prior to an operation. CONCLUSIONS: Although providers across training backgrounds held similar concerns about decreased care quality in the ICU, there is wide belief that the routine and noninvasive interventions are offered as indicated. Those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to believe that standards of care continued to be met after code status change.