Dying in the Neurointensive Care Unit After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy: Associations of Advance Directives and Health-Care Proxies With Timing and Treatment Intensity
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2021
Dying in the Neurointensive Care Unit After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy: Associations of Advance Directives and Health-Care Proxies With Timing and Treatment Intensity
Critically ill patients require a careful approach for prognosis and decision-making. The German health legislation aims to strengthen the role of advance directives (ADs) and health-care proxies (HCPs). Their impact within a dedicated neurocritical care setting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the practice of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining therapy (WOLST) in a German neurointensive care unit (NICU) focusing on whether AD or HCP is associated with timing and treatment intensity.
Methods:
Data on patients who died after WOLST at a dedicated NICU of a German university hospital, from 2010 to 2013, were retrospectively analyzed.
Results:
Of 400 deceased patients, 310 (77.5%) died after initiation of WOLST. Among them, 68 (21.9%) were identified to have AD or HCP or both (AD + HCP). WOLST patients with AD, HCP, or AD + HCP were older than those without (median age: 77 vs 72 years, P < .001) but did not show any other distinct baseline features. There was no difference in the specific neurocritical care measures between the groups. Poisson regression analysis showed no significant difference in the probability of time-dependent WOLST initiation between those with and without AD/HCP, after adjusting for age and sex (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.28; P = .244).
Conclusions:
In this single-center study of mainly cerebrovascular NICU patients, AD or HCP was neither associated with an earlier WOLST nor associated with a difference in treatment intensity before WOLST. Further prospective studies should assess the emerging concept of advance care planning in neurocritical care.
SprungCLCohenSLSjokvistP, et al.End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus Study. JAMA. 2003;290(6):790–797.
2.
FerrandERobertRIngrandPLemaireF; French LATAREA Group. Withholding and withdrawing of life support in intensive care units in France: a prospective survey. French LATAREA group. Lancet. 2001;357(9249):9–14.
3.
CookDJGuyattGRockerG, et al.Cardiopulmonary resuscitation directives on admission to intensive-care unit: an international observational study. Lancet. 2001;358(9297):1941–1945.
4.
TurnerJSMichellWLMorganCJBenatarSR. Limitation of life support: frequency and practice in a London and a Cape Town intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(10):1020–1025.
5.
JanssensUBurchardiHDuttgeG, et al.Change in therapy target and therapy limitations in intensive care medicine. Position paper of the Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine [in German]. Anaesthesist. 2013;62(1):47–52. doi:10.1007/s00101-012-2126-x.
6.
YokotaH. The Guideline of the end-of-life care for the acute disease and intensive care by the JAAM, JSICM and JCS [in Japanese]. Nihon Rinsho. 2016;74(2):345–351.
7.
SprungCLTruogRDCurtisJR, et al.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. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(8):855–866.
8.
KowalskiRGChangTRCarhuapomaJRTamargoRJNavalNS. Withdrawal of technological life support following subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2013;19(3):269–275.
9.
LantiguaHOrtega-GutierrezSSchmidtJM, et al.Subarachnoid hemorrhage: who dies, and why?Crit Care. 2015;19:309.
10.
MayerSAKossoffSB. Withdrawal of life support in the neurological intensive care unit. Neurology. 1999;52(8):1602–1609.
11.
FronteraJACurtisJRNelsonJE, et al.Integrating palliative care into the care of neurocritically ill patients: a report from the improving palliative care in the ICU project advisory board and the center to advance palliative care. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(9):1964–1977.
12.
TillyardAR. Ethics review: ‘living wills’ and intensive care—an overview of the American experience. Crit Care. 2007;11(4):219.
13.
HalpernNAPastoresSMChouJFChawlaSThalerHT. Advance directives in an oncologic intensive care unit: a contemporary analysis of their frequency, type, and impact. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(4):483–489.
14.
Kish WallaceSMartinCGShawADPriceKJ. Influence of an advance directive on the initiation of life support technology in critically ill cancer patients. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(12):2294–2298.
15.
HartogCSPeschelISchwarzkopfD, et al.Are written advance directives helpful to guide end-of-life therapy in the intensive care unit? A retrospective matched-cohort study. J Crit Care. 2014;29(1):128–133.
16.
HeylandDCookDBagshawSM, et al.The very elderly admitted to ICU: a quality finish?Crit Care Med. 2015;43(7):1352–1360.
17.
VerkadeMAEpkerJLNieuwenhoffMDBakkerJKompanjeEJ. Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a mixed intensive care unit: most common in patients with catastropic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2012;16(1):130–135.
18.
HemphillJC3rdWhiteDB. Clinical nihilism in neuroemergencies. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2009;27(1):27–37.
19.
TurgeonAFLauzierFBurnsKE, et al.Determination of neurologic prognosis and clinical decision making in adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a survey of Canadian intensivists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(4):1086–1093.
20.
BeckerKJBaxterABCohenWA, et al.Withdrawal of support in intracerebral hemorrhage may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Neurology. 2001;56(6):766–772.
21.
SouterMJBlissittPABlosserS, et al.Recommendations for the critical care management of devastating brain injury: prognostication, psychosocial, and ethical management: a position statement for healthcare professionals from the neurocritical care society. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):4–13.
22.
TurnbullAEKrallJRRuhlAP, et al.A scenario-based, randomized trial of patient values and functional prognosis on intensivist intent to discuss withdrawing life support. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(6):1455–1462.
23.
LederNSchwarzkopfDReinhartKWitteOWPfeiferRHartogCS. The validity of advance directives in acute situations. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(43):723–729.
24.
HartJLHarhayMOGablerNBRatcliffeSJQuillCMHalpernSD. Variability among US intensive care units in managing the care of patients admitted with preexisting limits on life-sustaining therapies. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):1019–1026.
25.
LangerSStengelIFleischerSStuttmannRBergA. Perspectives on advance directives among German intensive care physicians in leading positions [in German]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2016;141(9):e73–e79.
26.
KiphuthICKöhrmannMKuramatsuJB, et al.Retrospective agreement and consent to neurocritical care is influenced by functional outcome. Crit Care. 2010;14(4):R144.
27.
NeugebauerHCreutzfeldtCJHemphillJC3rdHeuschmannPUJüttlerE. Destiny-S: attitudes of physicians toward disability and treatment in malignant MCA infarction. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21(1):27–34.
28.
NeugebauerHSchnablMLuléDHeuschmannPUJüttlerE. Attitudes of patients and relatives toward disability and treatment in malignant MCA infarction. Neurocrit Care. 2017;26(2):311–318.
29.
VarelasPNHacein-BeyLSchultzLContiMSpanakiMVGennarelliTA. Withdrawal of life support in critically ill neurosurgical patients and in-hospital death after discharge from the neurosurgical intensive care unit. J Neurosurg. 2009;111:396–404.
30.
HemphillJC3rdGreenbergSMAndersonCS, et al.Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2015;46(7):2032–2060.
31.
TenoJLynnJWengerN, et al.Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatment. J Am Geriartr Soc. 1997;45(4):500–507.
32.
SudoreRLLumHDYouJJ, et al.Defining advance care planning for adults: a consensus definition from a multidisciplinary Delphi panel. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53(5):821–832.e1.
33.
HammesBJRooneyBLGundrumJD. A comparative, retrospective, observational study of the prevalence, availability, and specificity of advance care plans in a county that implemented an advance care planning microsystem. J Am Geriartr Soc. 2010;58(7):1249–1255.
