Time to Death after Terminal Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation: Specific Respiratory and Physiologic Parameters May Inform Physician Predictions.

BACKGROUND: Discussions about withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies often include family members of critically ill patients. These conversations should address essential components of the dying process, including expected time to death after withdrawal. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to aid physician communication about the dying process by identifying predictors of time to death after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis from a single-center, before-after evaluation of an intervention to improve palliative care. We studied 330 patients who died after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Predictors included patient demographics, laboratory, respiratory, and physiologic variables, and medication use. RESULTS: The median time to death for the entire cohort was 0.58 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 0.22-2.25 hours) after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. Using Cox regression, independent predictors of shorter time to death included higher positive end-expiratory pressure (per 1 cm H2O hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.11); higher static pressure (per 1 cm H2O HR, 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.04); extubation prior to death (HR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.86); and presence of diabetes (HR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.25-2.44). Higher noninvasive mean arterial pressure predicted longer time to death (per 1 mmHg HR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid illness and key respiratory and physiologic parameters may inform physician predictions of time to death after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation. An understanding of the predictors of time to death may facilitate discussions with family members of dying patients and improve communication about end-of-life care.

The influence of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on end-of-life care in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence about the influence of race/ethnicity on the use of intensive care at the end of life, and little is known about the influence of socioeconomic status. METHODS: We examined patients who died in the ICU in 15 hospitals. Race/ethnicity was assessed as white and nonwhite. Socioeconomic status included patient education, health insurance, and income by zip code. To explore differences in end-of-life care, we examined the use of (1) advance directives, (2) life-sustaining therapies, (3) symptom management, (4) communication, and (5) support services. RESULTS: Medical charts were abstracted for 3,138/3,400 patients of whom 2,479 (79%) were white and 659 (21%) were nonwhite (or Hispanic). In logistic regressions adjusted for patient demographics, socioeconomic factors, and site, nonwhite patients were less likely to have living wills (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32-0.54) and more likely to die with full support (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.30-1.94). In documentation of family conferences, nonwhite patients were more likely to have documentation that prognosis was discussed (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.77) and that physicians recommended withdrawal of life support (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.21). Nonwhite patients also were more likely to have discord documented among family members or with clinicians (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15). Socioeconomic status did not modify these associations and was not a consistent predictor of end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: We found numerous racial/ethnic differences in end-of-life care in the ICU that were not influenced by socioeconomic status. These differences could be due to treatment preferences, disparities, or both. Improving ICU end-of-life care for all patients and families will require a better understanding of these issues. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00685893; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.