Occurrence and Risk Factors for New Dependency on Chronic Care, Respiratory Support, Dialysis and Mortality in the First Year After Sepsis

Sepsis survival is associated with adverse outcomes. Knowledge about risk factors for adverse outcomes is lacking. We performed a population-based cohort study of 116,507 survivors of hospital-treated sepsis identified in health claims data of a German health insurance provider. We determined the development and risk factors for long-term adverse events: new dependency on chronic care, chronic dialysis, long-term respiratory support, and 12-month mortality. At-risk patients were defined by absence of these conditions prior to sepsis. Risk factors were identified using simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses. In the first year post-sepsis, 48.9% (56,957) of survivors had one or more adverse outcome, including new dependency on chronic care (31.9%), dialysis (2.8%) or respiratory support (1.6%), and death (30.7%). While pre-existing comorbidities adversely affected all studied outcomes (>4 comorbidities: OR 3.2 for chronic care, OR 4.9 for dialysis, OR 2.7 for respiratory support, OR 4.7 for 12-month mortality), increased age increased the odds for chronic care dependency and 12-month mortality, but not for dialysis or respiratory support. Hospital-acquired and multi-resistant infections were associated with increased risk of chronic care dependency, dialysis, and 12-month mortality. Multi-resistant infections also increased the odds of respiratory support. Urinary or respiratory infections or organ dysfunction increased the odds of new dialysis or respiratory support, respectively. Central nervous system infection and organ dysfunction had the highest OR for chronic care dependency among all infections and organ dysfunctions. Our results imply that patient- and infection-related factors have a differential impact on adverse life changing outcomes after sepsis. There is an urgent need for targeted interventions to reduce the risk

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

Who gets the ventilator? A multicentre survey of intensivists' opinions of triage during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shortage of intensive care resources. Intensivists' opinion of triage and ventilator allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well described. Methods This was a survey concerning patient numbers, bed capacity, triage guidelines, and three virtual cases involving ventilator allocations. Physicians from 400 ICUs in a research network were invited to participate. Preferences were assessed with a five-point Likert scale. Additionally, age, gender, work experience, geography, and religion were recorded. Results Of 437 responders 31% were female. The mean age was 44.4 (SD 11.1) with a mean ICU experience of 13.7 (SD 10.5) years. Respondents were mostly European (88%). Sixty-six percent had triage guidelines available. Younger patients and caretakers of children were favoured for ventilator allocation although this was less clear if this involved withdrawal of the ventilator from another patient. Decisions did not differ with ICU experience, gender, religion, or guideline availability. Consultation of colleagues or an ethical committee decreased with age and male gender. Conclusion Intensivists appeared to prioritise younger patients for ventilator allocation. The tendency to consult colleagues about triage decreased with age and male gender. Many found such tasks to be not purely medical and that authorities should assume responsibility for triage during resource scarcity.publishedVersio

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

Palliative care early in the care continuum among patients with serious respiratory illness an official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN policy statement

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary–critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary–critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration

Outcome in patients perceived as receiving excessive care across different ethical climates: a prospective study in 68 intensive care units in Europe and the USA

Purpose: Whether the quality of the ethical climate in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves the identification of patients receiving excessive care and affects patient outcomes is unknown. Methods: In this prospective observational study, perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by clinicians working in 68 ICUs in Europe and the USA were collected daily during a 28-day period. The quality of the ethical climate in the ICUs was assessed via a validated questionnaire. We compared the combined endpoint (death, not at home or poor quality of life at 1 year) of patients with PECs and the time from PECs until written treatment-limitation decisions (TLDs) and death across the four climates defined via cluster analysis. Results: Of the 4747 eligible clinicians, 2992 (63%) evaluated the ethical climate in their ICU. Of the 321 and 623 patients not admitted for monitoring only in ICUs with a good (n = 12, 18%) and poor (n = 24, 35%) climate, 36 (11%) and 74 (12%), respectively were identified with PECs by at least two clinicians. Of the 35 and 71 identified patients with an available combined endpoint, 100% (95% CI 90.0–1.00) and 85.9% (75.4–92.0) (P = 0.02) attained that endpoint. The risk of death (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.20–2.92) or receiving a written TLD (HR 2.32, CI 1.11–4.85) in patients with PECs by at least two clinicians was higher in ICUs with a good climate than in those with a poor one. The differences between ICUs with an average climate, with (n = 12, 18%) or without (n = 20, 29%) nursing involvement at the end of life, and ICUs with a poor climate were less obvious but still in favour of the former. Conclusion: Enhancing the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU may improve both the identification of patients receiving excessive care and the decision-making process at the end of life

Palliative care early in the care continuum among patients with serious respiratory illness - An official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN policy statement

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary–critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary–critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration