Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients in European ICUs

Increasing numbers of cancer patients are being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), either for cancer-related complications or treatment-associated side effects, yet there are relatively few data concerning the epidemiology and prognosis of cancer patients admitted to general ICUs. The aim of this study was to assess the characteristics of critically ill cancer patients, and to evaluate their prognosis.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

The Durban World Congress Ethics Round Table conference report: I. Differences between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments

Introduction: Withholding life-sustaining treatments (WHLST) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (WDLST) occur in most intensive care units (ICUs) around the world to varying degrees. Methods: Speakers from invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress in 2013 with an interest in ethics were approached to participate in an ethics round table. Participants were asked if they agreed with the statement "There is no moral difference between withholding and withdrawing a mechanical ventilator." Differences between WHLST and WDLST were discussed. Official statements relating to WHLST and WDLST from intensive care societies, professional bodies, and government statements were sourced, documented, and compared. Results: Sixteen respondents stated that there was no moral difference between withholding or withdrawing a mechanical ventilator, 2 were neutral, and 4 stated that there was a difference. Most ethicists and medical organizations state that there is no moral difference between WHLST and WDLST. A review of guidelines noted that all but 1 of 29 considered WHLST and WDLST as ethically or legally equivalent. Conclusions: Most respondents, practicing intensivists, stated that there is no difference between WHLST and WDLST, supporting most ethicists and professional organizations. A minority of physicians still do not accept their equivalency

The Durban World Congress Ethics Round Table Conference Report: II. Withholding or withdrawing of treatment in elderly patients admitted to the intensive care unit

Introduction: Life-sustaining treatment (LST) limitation for elderly patients is highly controversial. In that context, it is useful to evaluate the attitudes to LST in the elderly among experienced intensive care unit (ICU) physicians with different backgrounds and cultures. Methods: A panel of 22 international ICU physicians from 13 countries responded to a questionnaire related to withholding (WH) and withdrawing (WD) LST in elderly patients using a semi-Likert scale. Results: Most experts disagree or strongly disagree (77%) that age should be used as the sole criterion for WH or WD LST, and almost all disagree (91%) that there should be a specific age for such decision making. However, the vast majority (91%) acknowledge that age should be an important consideration in conjunction with other factors. Disagreement for consideration of prioritizing the young over the old in normal ICU operations was reported in 68%, whereas in an emergency triage situation, disagreement dropped to 18%. Conclusions: There is a consensus among ICU physicians that age cannot be the sole criterion on which health care decisions should be made. In that perspective, it is important to provide data showing that outcome differences between elderly and nonelderly patients are partly related to decisions to forgo LSTs

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: Emerging issues from a global perspective

Medical professional societies have traditionally opposed physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia (PAS-E), but this opposition may be shifting. We present 5 reasons why physicians shouldn’t be involved in PAS-E. 1. Slippery slopes: There is evidence that safeguards in the Netherlands and Belgium are ineffective and violated, including administering lethal drugs without patient consent, absence of terminal illness, untreated psychiatric diagnoses, and nonreporting; 2. Lack of self-determination: Psychological and social motives characterize requests for PAS-E more than physical symptoms or rational choices; many requests disappear with improved symptom control and psychological support; 3. Inadequate palliative care: Better palliative care makes most patients physically comfortable. Many individuals requesting PAS-E don’t want to die but to escape their suffering. Adequate treatment for depression and pain decreases the desire for death; 4. Medical professionalism: PAS-E transgresses the inviolable rule that physicians heal and palliate suffering but never intentionally inflict death; 5. Differences between means and ends: Proeuthanasia advocates look to the ends (the patient’s death) and say the ends justify the means; opponents disagree and believe that killing patients to relieve suffering is different from allowing natural death and is not acceptable. Conclusions: Physicians have a duty to eliminate pain and suffering, not the person with the pain and suffering. Solutions for suffering lie in improving palliative care and social conditions and addressing the reasons for PAS-E requests. They should not include changing medical practice to allow PAS-E

The Durban World Congress Ethics Round Table Conference Report: III. Withdrawing Mechanical ventilation-the approach should be individualized

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine the approaches used in withdrawing mechanical ventilator support. Materials and methods: Speakers from the invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress in 2013 with an interest in ethics were asked to provide a detailed description of individual approaches to the process of withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Results: Twenty-one participants originating from 13 countries, responded to the questionnaire. Four respondents indicated that they do not practice withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, and another 4 indicated that their approach is highly variable depending on the clinical scenario. Immediate withdrawal of ventilation was practiced by a large number of the respondents (7/16; 44%). A terminal wean was practiced by just more than a third of the respondents (6/16; 38%). Extubation was practiced in more than 70% of instances among most of the respondents (9/17; 53%). Two of the respondents (2/17; 12%) indicated that they would extubate all patients, whereas 14 respondents indicated that they would not extubate all their patients. The emphasis was on tailoring the approach used to suit individual case scenarios. Conclusions: Withdrawing of ventilator support is not universal. However, even when withdrawing mechanical ventilation is acceptable, the approach to achieve this end point is highly variable and individualized

The impact of religion on changes in end-of-life practices in European intensive care units: a comparative analysis over 16 years.

PURPOSE Religious beliefs affect end-of-life practices in intensive care units (ICUs). Changes over time in end-of-life practices were not investigated regarding religions. METHODS Twenty-two European ICUs (3 regions: Northern, Central, and Southern Europe) participated in both Ethicus-1 (years 1999-2000) and Ethicus-2 studies (years 2015-2016). Data of ICU patients who died or had limitations of life-sustaining therapy were analysed regarding changes in end-of-life practices and patient/physician religious affiliations. Frequencies, timing of decision-making, and religious affiliations of physicians/patients were compared using the same definitions. RESULTS In total, 4592 adult ICU patients (n = 2807 Ethicus-1, n = 1785 Ethicus-2) were analysed. In both studies, patient and physician religious affiliations were mostly Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Protestant, or unknown. Treating physicians (but not patients) commonly reported no religious affiliation (18%). Distribution of end-of-life practices with respect to religion and geographical regions were comparable between the two studies. Withholding [n = 1143 (40.7%) Ethicus-1 and n = 892 (50%) Ethicus-2] and withdrawing [n = 695 (24.8%) Ethicus-1 and n = 692 (38.8%) Ethicus-2] were most commonly decided. No significant changes in end-of-life practices were observed for any religion over 16 years. The number of end-of-life discussions with patients/ families/ physicians increased, while mortality and time until first decision decreased. CONCLUSIONS Changes in end-of-life practices observed over 16 years appear unrelated to religious affiliations of ICU patients or their treating physicians, but the effects of religiosity and/or culture could not be assessed. Shorter time until decision in the ICU and increased numbers of patient and family discussions may indicate increased awareness of the importance of end-of-life decision-making in the ICU

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 (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 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

Global utilization of low-dose corticosteroids in severe sepsis and septic shock: a report from the PROGRESS registry

The benefits and use of low-dose corticosteroids (LDCs) in severe sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines suggest LDC use for septic shock patients poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Their use is suspected to be wide-spread, but paucity of data regarding global practice exists. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated or not treated with LDC from the international PROGRESS (PROmoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.Journal ArticleMulticenter StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe