Intensive care unit discharge to the ward with a tracheostomy cannula as a risk factor for mortality: A prospective, multicenter propensity analysis

To analyze the impact of decannulation before intensive care unit discharge on ward survival in nonexperimental conditions. DESIGN: Prospective, observational survey. SETTING: Thirty-one intensive care units throughout Spain. PATIENTS: All patients admitted from March 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At intensive care unit discharge, we recorded demographic variables, severity score, and intensive care unit treatments, with special attention to tracheostomy. After intensive care unit discharge, we recorded intensive care unit readmission and hospital survival. STATISTICS: Multivariate analyses for ward mortality, with Cox proportional hazard ratio adjusted for propensity score for intensive care unit decannulation. We included 4,132 patients, 1,996 of whom needed mechanical ventilation. Of these, 260 (13%) were tracheostomized and 59 (23%) died in the intensive care unit. Of the 201 intensive care unit tracheostomized survivors, 60 were decannulated in the intensive care unit and 141 were discharged to the ward with cannulae in place. Variables associated with intensive care unit decannulation (non-neurologic disease [85% vs. 64%], vasoactive drugs [90% vs. 76%], parenteral nutrition [55% vs. 33%], acute renal failure [37% vs. 23%], and good prognosis at intensive care unit discharge [40% vs. 18%]) were included in a propensity score model for decannulation. Crude ward mortality was similar in decannulated and nondecannulated patients (22% vs. 23%); however, after adjustment for the propensity score and Sabadell Score, the presence of a tracheostomy cannula was not associated with any survival disadvantage with an odds ratio of 0.6 [0.3-1.2] (p=.1). CONCLUSION: In our multicenter setting, intensive care unit discharge before decannulation is not a risk factor

Limitation of life support techniques at admission to the intensive care unit: a multicenter prospective cohort study

Purpose: To determine the frequency of limitations on life support techniques (LLSTs) on admission to intensive care units (ICU), factors associated, and 30-day survival in patients with LLST on ICU admission. Methods: This prospective observational study included all patients admitted to 39 ICUs in a 45-day period in 2011. We recorded hospitals’ characteristics (availability of intermediate care units, usual availability of ICU beds, and financial model) and patients’ characteristics (demographics, reason for admission, functional status, risk of death, and LLST on ICU admission (withholding/withdrawing; specific techniques affected)). The primary outcome was 30-day survival for patients with LLST on ICU admission. Statistical analysis included multilevel logistic regression models. Results: We recruited 3042 patients (age 62.5 ± 16.1 years). Most ICUs (94.8%) admitted patients with LLST, but only 238 (7.8% [95% CI 7.0–8.8]) patients had LLST on ICU admission; this group had higher ICU mortality (44.5 vs. 9.4% in patients without LLST; p < 0.001). Multilevel logistic regression showed a contextual effect of the hospital in LLST on ICU admission (median OR = 2.30 [95% CI 1.59–2.96]) and identified the following patient-related variables as independent factors associated with LLST on ICU admission: age, reason for admission, risk of death, and functional status. In patients with LLST on ICU admission, 30-day survival was 38% (95% CI 31.7–44.5). Factors associated with survival were age, reason for admission, risk of death, and number of reasons for LLST on ICU admission. Conclusions: The frequency of ICU admission with LLST is low but probably increasing; nearly one third of these patients survive for ≥ 30 days