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

Is albumin administration in the acutely ill associated with increased mortality? Results of the SOAP study

INTRODUCTION: Albumin administration in the critically ill has been the subject of some controversy. We investigated the use of albumin solutions in European intensive care units (ICUs) and its relationship to outcome. METHODS: In a cohort, multicenter, observational study, all patients admitted to one of the participating ICUs between 1 May and 15 May 2002 were followed up until death, hospital discharge, or for 60 days. Patients were classified according to whether or not they received albumin at any time during their ICU stay. RESULTS: Of 3,147 admitted patients, 354 (11.2%) received albumin and 2,793 (88.8%) did not. Patients who received albumin were more likely to have cancer or liver cirrhosis, to be surgical admissions, and to have sepsis. They had a longer length of ICU stay and a higher mortality rate, but were also more severely ill, as manifested by higher simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores than the other patients. A Cox proportional hazard model indicated that albumin administration was significantly associated with decreased 30-day survival. Moreover, in 339 pairs matched according to a propensity score, ICU and hospital mortality rates were higher in the patients who had received albumin than in those who had not (34.8 versus 20.9% and 41.3 versus 27.7%, respectively, both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Albumin administration was associated with decreased survival in this population of acutely ill patients. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the effects of albumin administration in sub-groups of acutely ill patients

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: 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

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