The Eldicus prospective, observational study of triage decision making in European intensive care units. Part II: intensive care benefit for the elderly.

RATIONALE: Life and death triage decisions are made daily by intensive care unit physicians. Admission to an intensive care unit is denied when intensive care unit resources are constrained, especially for the elderly. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of intensive care unit triage decisions on mortality and intensive care unit benefit, specifically for elderly patients. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study of triage decisions from September 2003 until March 2005. SETTING: Eleven intensive care units in seven European countries. PATIENTS: All patients >18 yrs with an explicit request for intensive care unit admission. INTERVENTIONS: Admission or rejection to intensive care unit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, hospital, physiologic variables, and 28-day mortality were obtained on consecutive patients. There were 8,472 triages in 6,796 patients, 5,602 (82%) were accepted to the intensive care unit, 1,194 (18%) rejected; 3,795 (49%) were ≥ 65 yrs. Refusal rate increased with increasing patient age (18-44: 11%; 45-64: 15%; 65-74: 18%; 75-84: 23%; >84: 36%). Mortality was higher for older patients (18-44: 11%; 45-64: 21%; 65-74: 29%; 75-84: 37%; >84: 48%). Differences between mortalities of accepted vs. rejected patients, however, were greatest for older patients (18-44: 10.2% vs. 12.5%; 45-64: 21.2% vs. 22.3%; 65-74: 27.9% vs. 34.6%; 75-84: 35.5% vs. 40.4%; >84: 41.5% vs. 58.5%). Logistic regression showed a greater mortality reduction for accepted vs. rejected patients corrected for disease severity for elderly patients (age >65 [odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.78, p < .0001]) than younger patients (age <65 [odds ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.97, p = .01]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that elderly patients have more intensive care unit rejections than younger patients and have a higher mortality when admitted, the mortality benefit appears greater for the elderly. Physicians should consider changing their intensive care unit triage practices for the elderly.

The Eldicus prospective, observational study of triage decision making in European intensive care units: part I--European Intensive Care Admission Triage Scores.

OBJECTIVE: Life and death triage decisions are made daily by intensive care unit physicians. Scoring systems have been developed for prognosticating intensive care unit mortality but none for intensive care unit triage. The objective of this study was to develop an intensive care unit triage decision rule based on 28-day mortality rates of admitted and refused patients. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study of triage decisions from September 2003 until March 2005. SETTING: Eleven intensive care units in seven European countries. PATIENTS: All patients >18 yrs with a request for intensive care unit admission. INTERVENTIONS: Admission or rejection to an intensive care unit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical, laboratory, and physiological variables and data from severity scores were collected. Separate scores for accepted and rejected patients with 28-day mortality end point were built. Values for variables were grouped into categories determined by the locally weighted least squares graphical method applied to the logit of the mortality and by univariate logistic regressions for reducing candidates for the score. Multivariate logistic regression was used to construct the final score. Cutoff values for 99.5% specificity were determined. Of 6796 patients, 5602 were admitted and 1194 rejected. The initial refusal score included age, diagnosis, systolic blood pressure, pulse, respirations, creatinine, bilirubin, PaO2, bicarbonate, albumin, use of vasopressors, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Karnofsky Scale, operative status and chronic disorder, and the initial refusal receiver operating characteristics were area under the curve 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.79). The final triage score included age, diagnosis, creatinine, white blood cells, platelets, albumin, use of vasopressors, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Karnofsky Scale, operative status and chronic disorder, and the final score receiver operating characteristics were area under the curve 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.86). Patients with initial refusal scores >173.5 or final triage scores = 0 should be rejected. CONCLUSIONS: The initial refusal score and final triage score provide objective data for rejecting patients that will die even if admitted to the intensive care unit and survive if refused intensive care unit admission.

Implications of ICU triage decisions on patient mortality: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care is generally regarded as expensive, and as a result beds are limited. This has raised serious questions about rationing when there are insufficient beds for all those referred. However, the evidence for the cost effectiveness of intensive care is weak and the work that does exist usually assumes that those who are not admitted do not survive, which is not always the case. Randomised studies of the effectiveness of intensive care are difficult to justify on ethical grounds; therefore, this observational study examined the cost effectiveness of ICU admission by comparing patients who were accepted into ICU after ICU triage to those who were not accepted, while attempting to adjust such comparison for confounding factors. METHODS: This multi-centre observational cohort study involved 11 hospitals in 7 EU countries and was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of admission to intensive care after ICU triage. A total of 7,659 consecutive patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) were divided into those accepted for admission and those not accepted. The two groups were compared in terms of cost and mortality using multilevel regression models to account for differences across centres, and after adjusting for age, Karnofsky score and indication for ICU admission. The analyses were also stratified by categories of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II predicted mortality (< 5%, 5% to 40% and >40%). Cost effectiveness was evaluated as cost per life saved and cost per life-year saved. RESULTS: Admission to ICU produced a relative reduction in mortality risk, expressed as odds ratio, of 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) at 28 days. When stratified by predicted mortality, the odds ratio was 1.49 (0.79 to 2.81), 0.7 (0.51 to 0.97) and 0.55 (0.37 to 0.83) for <5%, 5% to 40% and >40% predicted mortality, respectively. Average cost per life saved for all patients was $103,771 (€82,358) and cost per life-year saved was $7,065 (€5,607). These figures decreased substantially for patients with predicted mortality higher than 40%, $60,046 (€47,656) and $4,088 (€3,244), respectively. Results were very similar when considering three-month mortality. Sensitivity analyses performed to assess the robustness of the results provided findings similar to the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Not only does ICU appear to produce an improvement in survival, but the cost per life saved falls for patients with greater severity of illness. This suggests that intensive care is similarly cost effective to other therapies that are generally regarded as essential.