Derivation and performance of an end-of-life practice score aimed at interpreting worldwide treatment-limiting decisions in the critically ill

BACKGROUND: Limitations of life-sustaining interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) exhibit substantial changes over time, and large, contemporary variation across world regions. We sought to determine whether a weighted end-of-life practice score can explain a large, contemporary, worldwide variation in limitation decisions. METHODS: The 2015-2016 (Ethicus-2) vs. 1999-2000 (Ethicus-1) comparison study was a two-period, prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 4952 patients from 22 European ICUs. The worldwide Ethicus-2 study was a single-period prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 12,200 patients from 199 ICUs situated in 8 world regions. Binary end-of-life practice variable data (1 = presence; 0 = absence) were collected post hoc (comparison study, 22/22 ICUs, n = 4592; worldwide study, 186/199 ICUs, n = 11,574) for family meetings, daily deliberation for appropriate level of care, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings, written triggers for limitations, written ICU end-of-life guidelines and protocols, palliative care and ethics consultations, ICU-staff taking communication or bioethics courses, and national end-of-life guidelines and legislation. Regarding the comparison study, generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis was used to determine associations between the 12 end-of-life practice variables and treatment limitations. The weighted end-of-life practice score was then calculated using GEE-derived coefficients of the end-of-life practice variables. Subsequently, the weighted end-of-life practice score was validated in GEE analysis using the worldwide study dataset. RESULTS: In comparison study GEE analyses, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings [odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.99], end-of-life guidelines [OR 0.52, (0.31-0.87)] and protocols [OR 15.08, (3.88-58.59)], palliative care consultations [OR 2.63, (1.23-5.60)] and end-of-life legislation [OR 3.24, 1.60-6.55)] were significantly associated with limitation decisions (all P < 0.05). In worldwide GEE analyses, the weighted end-of-life practice score was significantly associated with limitation decisions [OR 1.12 (1.03-1.22); P = 0.008]. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison study-derived, weighted end-of-life practice score partly explained the worldwide study's variation in treatment limitations. The most important components of the weighted end-of-life practice score were ICU end-of-life protocols, palliative care consultations, and country end-of-life legislation. © 2022. The Author(s)

Variability in triage practices for critically ill cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial

Purpose: Intensive care triage practices and end-user interpretation of triage guidelines have rarely been assessed. We evaluated agreement between providers on the prioritization of patients for ICU admission using different triage guidelines. Materials and methods: A multi-centered randomized study on providers from 18 different countries was conducted using clinical vignettes of oncological patients. The level of agreement between providers was measured using two different guidelines, with one being cancer specific. Results: Amongst 257 providers, 52.5% randomly received the Society of Critical Care Prioritization Model, and 47.5% received a cancer specific flowchart as a guide. In the Prioritization Model arm the average entropy was 1.193, versus 1.153 in the flowchart arm (P = .095) indicating similarly poor agreement. The Fleiss' kappa coefficients were estimated to be 0.2136 for the SCCMPM arm and 0.2457 for the flowchart arm, also similarly implying poor agreement. Conclusions: The low agreement amongst practitioners on the prioritization of cancer patient cases for ICU admission existed using both general triage guidelines and guidelines tailored only to cancer patients. The lack of consensus on intensive care unit triage practices in the oncological population exposes a potential barrier to appropriate resource allocation that needs to be addressed. © 2019 Elsevier Inc

Variability in triage practices for critically ill cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial

Purpose: Intensive care triage practices and end-user interpretation of triage guidelines have rarely been assessed. We evaluated agreement between providers on the prioritization of patients for ICU admission using different triage guidelines. Materials and methods: A multi-centered randomized study on providers from 18 different countries was conducted using clinical vignettes of oncological patients. The level of agreement between providers was measured using two different guidelines, with one being cancer specific. Results: Amongst 257 providers, 52.5% randomly received the Society of Critical Care Prioritization Model, and 47.5% received a cancer specific flowchart as a guide. In the Prioritization Model arm the average entropy was 1.193, versus 1.153 in the flowchart arm (P = .095) indicating similarly poor agreement. The Fleiss' kappa coefficients were estimated to be 0.2136 for the SCCMPM arm and 0.2457 for the flowchart arm, also similarly implying poor agreement. Conclusions: The low agreement amongst practitioners on the prioritization of cancer patient cases for ICU admission existed using both general triage guidelines and guidelines tailored only to cancer patients. The lack of consensus on intensive care unit triage practices in the oncological population exposes a potential barrier to appropriate resource allocation that needs to be addressed. © 2019 Elsevier Inc

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of sedoanalgesia and delirium in critically ill adult patients

Dada la importancia del manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium en las unidades de cuidados intensivos, y con el fin de actualizar las guías publicadas anteriormente, se decidió elaborar una nueva guía de práctica clínica con los soportes, manejos e intervenciones más relevantes acordes con las publicaciones recientes. Para elaborar esta guía, se reunió un grupo de 24 intensivistas procedentes de 9 países de la Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva. Se acogió la propuesta del Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group para emitir el grado de recomendación y evaluar la calidad de la evidencia. Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura utilizándose: MEDLINE, las siguientes bases de datos de la biblioteca Cochrane: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, y la base de datos de Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud (LILACS). Finalmente, se seleccionaron 438 referencias, permitiendo realizar 47 recomendaciones fuertes con evidencia alta y moderada, 14 recomendaciones condicionales con evidencia moderada y 65 recomendaciones condicionales con evidencia baja. Se confirma la importancia del manejo inicial y multimodal del dolor, se hace énfasis en la disminución de los niveles de sedación y la utilización de sedación profunda solo en casos específicos. Aumenta la evidencia y recomendaciones para el uso de medicamentos como dexmedetomidina, remifentanil, ketamina, entre otros.Given the importance of the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium in Intensive Care Units, and in order to update the previously published guidelines, a new clinical practice guide is presented, addressing the most relevant management and intervention aspects based on the recent literature. A group of 24 intensivists from 9 countries of the Pan-American and Iberian Federation of Societies of Critical Medicine and Intensive Therapy met to develop the guidelines. Assessment of evidence quality and recommendations was made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library databases such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the database of Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS). A total of 438 references were selected. After consensus, 47 strong recommendations with high and moderate quality evidence, 14 conditional recommendations with moderate quality evidence, and 65 conditional recommendations with low quality evidence were established. Finally, the importance of initial and multimodal pain management was underscored. Emphasis was placed on decreasing sedation levels and the use of deep sedation only in specific cases. The evidence and recommendations for the use of drugs such as dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine and others were incremented. © 2019 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y SEMICYU