Global Comparison of Communication of End-of-Life Decisions in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Prolonging life in the ICU increasingly is possible, so decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies frequently are made and communicated to patients and families or surrogates. Little is known about worldwide communication practices and influencing factors. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there regional differences in end-of-life communication practices in ICUs worldwide? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This analysis of data from a prospective, international study specifically addressed end-of-life communications in consecutive patients who died or had limitation of life-sustaining therapy over 6 months in 199 ICUs in 36 countries, grouped regionally. End-of-life decisions were recorded for each patient and ethical practice was assessed retrospectively for each ICU using a 12-point questionnaire developed previously. RESULTS: Of 87,951 patients admitted, 12,850 died or experienced a limitation of therapy (14.6%). Of these, 1,199 patients (9.3%) were known to have an advance directive, and wishes were elicited from 6,456 patients (50.2%). Limitations of life-sustaining therapy were implemented for 10,401 patients (80.9%), 1,970 (19.1%) of whom had mental capacity at the time, and were discussed with 1,507 patients (14.5%) and 8,461 families (81.3%). Where no discussions with patients occurred (n = 8,710), this primarily was because of a lack of mental capacity in 8,114 patients (93.2%), and where none occurred with families (n = 1,622), this primarily was because of unavailability (n = 720 [44.4%]). Regional variation was noted for all end points. In generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses, the odds for discussions with the patient or family increased by 30% (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.44; P < .001) for every one-point increase in the Ethical Practice Score and by 92% (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.28-2.89; P = .002) in the presence of an advance directive. INTERPRETATION: End-of-life communication with patients and families or surrogates varies markedly in different global regions. GEE analysis supports the hypothesis that communication may increase with ethical practice and an advance directive. Greater effort is needed to align treatment with patients' wishes.

Randomized, multicenter trial of lateral Trendelenburg versus semirecumbent body position for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

PURPOSE: The lateral Trendelenburg position (LTP) may hinder the primary pathophysiologic mechanism of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We investigated whether placing patients in the LTP would reduce the incidence of VAP in comparison with the semirecumbent position (SRP). METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, controlled study in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. Two preplanned interim analyses were performed. Patients were randomized to be placed in the LTP or the SRP. The primary outcome, assessed by intention-to-treat analysis, was incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP. Major secondary outcomes included mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit length of stay. RESULTS: At the second interim analysis, the trial was stopped because of low incidence of VAP, lack of benefit in secondary outcomes, and occurrence of adverse events. A total of 194 patients in the LTP group and 201 in the SRP group were included in the final intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP was 0.5% (1/194) and 4.0% (8/201) in LTP and SRP patients, respectively (relative risk 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-1.03, p = 0.04). The 28-day mortality was 30.9% (60/194) and 26.4% (53/201) in LTP and SRP patients, respectively (relative risk 1.17, 95% CI 0.86-1.60, p = 0.32). Likewise, no differences were found in other secondary outcomes. Six serious adverse events were described in LTP patients (p = 0.01 vs. SRP). CONCLUSIONS: The LTP slightly decreased the incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP. Nevertheless, given the early termination of the trial, the low incidence of VAP, and the adverse events associated with the LTP, the study failed to prove any significant benefit. Further clinical investigation is strongly warranted; however, at this time, the LTP cannot be recommended as a VAP preventive measure. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01138540.