Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRamazzotti, Daniele
dc.contributor.authorClardy, Peter
dc.contributor.authorCeli, Leo Anthony G.
dc.contributor.authorStone, David J.
dc.contributor.authorRudin, Robert S.
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-25T16:57:44Z
dc.date.available2019-06-25T16:57:44Z
dc.date.issued2019-02
dc.date.submitted2018-08
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/121407
dc.description.abstractThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background Critically ill patients may die despite invasive intervention. In this study, we examine trends in the application of two such treatments over a decade, namely, endotracheal ventilation and vasopressors and inotropes administration, as well as the impact of these trends on survival durations in patients who die within a month of ICU admission. Methods We considered observational data available from the MIMIC-III open-access ICU database and collected within a study period between year 2002 up to 2011. If a patient had multiple admissions to the ICU during the 30 days before death, only the first stay was analyzed, leading to a final set of 6,436 unique ICU admissions during the study period. We tested two hypotheses: (i) administration of invasive intervention during the ICU stay immediately preceding end-of-life would decrease over the study time period and (ii) time-to-death from ICU admission would also decrease, due to the decrease in invasive intervention administration. To investigate the latter hypothesis, we performed a subgroups analysis by considering patients with lowest and highest severity. To do so, we stratified the patients based on their SAPS I scores, and we considered patients within the first and the third tertiles of the score. We then assessed differences in trends within these groups between years 2002–05 vs. 2008–11. Results Comparing the period 2002–2005 vs. 2008–2011, we found a reduction in endotracheal ventilation among patients who died within 30 days of ICU admission (120.8 vs. 68.5 hours for the lowest severity patients, p<0.001; 47.7 vs. 46.0 hours for the highest severity patients, p = 0.004). This is explained in part by an increase in the use of non-invasive ventilation. Comparing the period 2002–2005 vs. 2008–2011, we found a reduction in the use of vasopressors and inotropes among patients with the lowest severity who died within 30 days of ICU admission (41.8 vs. 36.2 hours, p<0.001) but not among those with the highest severity. Despite a reduction in the use of invasive interventions, we did not find a reduction in the time to death between 2002–2005 vs. 2008–2011 (7.8 days vs. 8.2 days for the lowest severity patients, p = 0.32; 2.1 days vs. 2.0 days for the highest severity patients, p = 0.74). Conclusion We found that the reduction in the use of invasive treatments over time in patients with very poor prognosis did not shorten the time-to-death. These findings may be useful for goals of care discussions.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant EB017205-01A1)en_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212439en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourcePLoSen_US
dc.titleWithholding or withdrawing invasive interventions may not accelerate time to death among dying ICU patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationRamazzotti, Daniele et al. “Withholding or Withdrawing Invasive Interventions May Not Accelerate Time to Death Among Dying ICU Patients.” Edited by Shane Patman. PLOS ONE 14, 2 (February 2019): e0212439 © 2019 Ramazzotti et al.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Medical Engineering & Scienceen_US
dc.relation.journalPLOS ONEen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2019-03-25T15:20:00Z
dspace.orderedauthorsRamazzotti, Daniele; Clardy, Peter; Celi, Leo Anthony; Stone, David J.; Rudin, Robert S.en_US
dspace.embargo.termsNen_US
dspace.date.submission2019-04-04T11:07:17Z
mit.journal.volume14en_US
mit.journal.issue2en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CCen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record