Seeking worldwide professional consensus on the principles of end-of-life care for the critically ill. The Consensus for Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in Intensive Care Units (WELPICUS) study.

Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as >80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had >90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus was obtained for 77 of 81 (95%) statements. Worldwide consensus could be developed for the majority of definitions and statements about end-of-life practices. Statements achieving consensus provide standards of practice for end-of-life care; statements without consensus identify important areas for future research.

Fast-track concepts in major open upper abdominal and thoracoabdominal surgery: a review.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this article was to review the research considering fast-track concepts in upper abdominal and thoracoabdominal surgery. METHODS: A search for clinical studies evaluating the fast-track concept after open major upper abdominal or thoracoabdominal surgery was performed. Reference lists of identified articles were searched. Trials-written in English-that compared a concept and traditional care were evaluated with regard to their internal validity. Level of evidence was defined and each outcome was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 15 articles were found, separated into gastric (n = 2), pancreatic (n = 5), hepatic (n = 2), esophageal (n = 3), and aortic surgery (n = 3). Three were randomized, controlled trials. The different trials represented various concepts of fast-track surgery, but the majority included specific programs for analgesics, avoidance of drainage tubes, early start of oral nutrition, and early and active mobilization. There is moderate evidence that fast-track concepts result in shorter hospital stay. There is low evidence that fast-track concepts shorten need of ventilation, decrease the need of care at the intensive care unit, decrease postoperative pain, and reduce total hospital costs. The concepts seem to have similar rates of surgical complications, readmission rate, and mortality rates as conventional care. No specific adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although the methodological quality of the articles reviewed was low and the trials heterogeneous, all trials concluded that the introduction of fast-track concepts were safe and feasible, achieved shorter hospital stays, and reduced costs. Future randomized, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the effect of these concepts.

Relieving suffering or intentionally hastening death: where do you draw the line?

OBJECTIVE: End-of-life practices vary worldwide. The objective was to demonstrate that there is no clear-cut distinction between treatments administered to relieve pain and suffering and those intended to shorten the dying process. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study. SETTING: Thirty-seven intensive care units in 17 European countries. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients dying or with any limitation of therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Evaluation of the type of end-of-life category; dates and times of intensive care unit admission, death, or discharge; and decisions to limit therapy, medication, and doses used for active shortening of the dying process and the intent of the doctors prescribing the medication. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Limitation of life-sustaining therapy occurred in 3,086 (72.6%) of 4,248 patients, and 94 (2.2%) underwent active shortening of the dying process. Medication for active shortening of the dying process included administration of opiates (morphine to 71 patients) or benzodiazepines (diazepam to 54 patients) alone or in combination. The median dosage for morphine was 25.0 mg/hr and for diazepam 20.8 mg/hr. Doses of opiates and benzodiazepines were no higher than mean doses used with withdrawal in previous studies in 20 of 66 patients and were within the ranges of doses used in all but one patient. Doctors considered that medications for active shortening of the dying process definitely led to the patient's death in 72 patients (77%), probably led to the patient's death in 11 (12%), and were unlikely to have led to death in 11 (12%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gray area in end-of-life care between treatments administered to relieve pain and suffering and those intended to shorten the dying process.

Reasons, considerations, difficulties and documentation of end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units: the ETHICUS Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physicians' reasoning, considerations and possible difficulties in end-of-life decision-making for patients in European intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Thirty-seven ICUs in 17 European countries. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3,086 patients for whom an end-of-life decision was taken between January 1999 and June 2000. The dataset excludes patients who died after attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation and brain-dead patients. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Physicians indicated which of a pre-determined set of reasons for, considerations in, and difficulties with end-of-life decision-making was germane in each case as it arose. Overall, 2,134 (69%) of the decisions were documented in the medical record, with inter-regional differences in documentation practice. Primary reasons given by physicians for the decision mostly concerned the patient's medical condition (79%), especially unresponsive to therapy (46%), while chronic disease (12%), quality of life (4%), age (2%) and patient or family request (2%) were infrequent. Good medical practice (66%) and best interests (29%) were the commonest primary considerations reported, while resource allocation issues such as cost effectiveness (1%) and need for an ICU bed (0%) were uncommon. Living wills were considered in only 1% of cases. Physicians in central Europe reported no significant difficulty in 81% of cases, while in northern and southern regions there was no difficulty in 92-93% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: European ICU physicians do not experience difficulties with end-of-life decisions in most cases. Allocation of limited resources is a minor consideration and autonomous choices by patient or family remain unusual. Inter-regional differences were found.

The importance of religious affiliation and culture on end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of religious affiliation and culture on end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective, observational study of European ICUs was performed on consecutive patients with any limitation of therapy. Prospectively defined end-of-life practices in 37 ICUs in 17 European countries studied from 1 January 1999 to 30 June 2000 were compared for frequencies, patterns, timing, and communication by religious affiliation of physicians and patients and regions. RESULTS: Of the 31,417 patients 3,086 had limitations. Withholding occurred more often than withdrawing if the physician was Jewish (81%), Greek Orthodox (78%), or Moslem (63%). Withdrawing occurred more often for physicians who were Catholic (53%), Protestant (49%), or had no religious affiliation (47%). End-of-life decisions differed for physicians between regions and who had any religious affiliation vs. no religious affiliation in all three geographical regions. Median time from ICU admission to first limitation of therapy was 3.2 days but varied by religious affiliation; from 1.6 days for Protestant to 7.6 days for Greek Orthodox physicians. Median times from limitations to death also varied by physician's religious affiliation. Decisions were discussed with the families more often if the physician was Protestant (80%), Catholic (70%), had no religious affiliation (66%) or was Jewish (63%). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences associated with religious affiliation and culture were observed for the type of end of life decision, the times to therapy limitation and death, and discussion of decisions with patient families.

End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus Study.

CONTEXT: While the adoption of practice guidelines is standardizing many aspects of patient care, ethical dilemmas are occurring because of forgoing life-sustaining therapies in intensive care and are dealt with in diverse ways between different countries and cultures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and types of actual end-of-life practices in European intensive care units (ICUs) and to analyze the similarities and differences. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective, observational study of European ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of therapy. INTERVENTION: Prospectively defined end-of-life practices in 37 ICUs in 17 European countries were studied from January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison and analysis of the frequencies and patterns of end-of-life care by geographic regions and different patients and professionals. RESULTS: Of 31 417 patients admitted to ICUs, 4248 patients (13.5%) died or had a limitation of life-sustaining therapy. Of these, 3086 patients (72.6%) had limitations of treatments (10% of admissions). Substantial intercountry variability was found in the limitations and the manner of dying: unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 20% (range, 5%-48%), brain death in 8% (range, 0%-15%), withholding therapy in 38% (range, 16%-70%), withdrawing therapy in 33% (range, 5%-69%), and active shortening of the dying process in 2% (range, 0%-19%). Shortening of the dying process was reported in 7 countries. Doses of opioids and benzodiazepines reported for shortening of the dying process were in the same range as those used for symptom relief in previous studies. Limitation of therapy vs continuation of life-sustaining therapy was associated with patient age, acute and chronic diagnoses, number of days in ICU, region, and religion (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The limiting of life-sustaining treatment in European ICUs is common and variable. Limitations were associated with patient age, diagnoses, ICU stay, and geographic and religious factors. Although shortening of the dying process is rare, clarity between withdrawing therapies and shortening of the dying process and between therapies intended to relieve pain and suffering and those intended to shorten the dying process may be lacking.