Managing futility in critically ill patients with cardiac disease

Intensive Care Management of the Cardiogenic Shock Patient

Optimal management of patients with cardiogenic shock requires a detailed and systematic assessment of all organ systems, balancing the risks and benefits of any investigation and intervention, while avoiding the complications of critical illness. Overall prognosis depends upon a number of factors, including that of the underlying cardiac disease and its potential reversibility, the severity of shock, the involvement of other organ systems, the age of the patient and comorbidities. As with all intensive care patients, the mainstay of management is supportive, up to and including implementation and management of a number of devices, including acute mechanical circulatory support. The assessment and management of these most critically ill patients therefore demands in-depth knowledge and skill relating to cardiac intensive care, extending well beyond standard intensive care or cardiology practice.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a bridge too far?

Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO) provides a bridge to recovery in patients with acute respiratory failure due to the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Survival in ARDS has improved over 15 years, and VV-ECMO may rescue even the most severe of these patients. Predictors of survival on ICU are based upon the principles of reversibility of the inciting aetiology, and premorbid 'reserve' - an imprecise term encompassing comorbidities and frailty. ECMO can support failing organs for prolonged periods, thus sometimes masking trajectories of decline, or unmasking irretrievable intrinsic conditions at a later time point in the critical illness. Clinicians are confronted with new on-treatment dilemmas: how long should we continue this high level of care? Will the patient's limited respiratory reserve manage off ECMO? Or are we hastening their demise? How long is it justifiable to keep someone on ECMO, if the predicted survival off is ultimately poor, but they are in a stable state whilst supported? The palliative withdrawal from ECMO is unchartered territory that requires further study. We describe two representative cases and discuss the wide ethical issues surrounding the initiation and withdrawal of ECMO.

Interventions and decision-making at the end of life: the effect of establishing the terminal illness situation

Background

Many ‘routine’ interventions performed in hospital rooms have repercussions for the comfort of the patient, and the decision to perform them should depend on whether the patient is identified as in a terminal phase. The aim of this study is to analyse the health interventions performed and decisions made in the last days of life in patients with advanced oncological and non-oncological illness to ascertain whether identifying the patient’s terminal illness situation has any effect on these decisions.

Methods

Retrospective study of the clinical histories of deceased patients in four hospitals in Granada (Spain) in 2010. Clinical histories corresponding to the last three months of the patient’s life were reviewed.

Results

A total of 202 clinical histories were reviewed, 60 % of which were those of non-oncology patients. Opioid prescriptions (58.4 %), palliative sedation (35.1 %) and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders (34.7 %) were the decisions most often reflected in the histories, and differences in these decisions were found between patients registered as terminal and those who were not registered as terminal. The most frequent interventions in the final 14 days and 48 h were parenteral hydration (96–83 %), peripheral venous catheter (90.1–82 %) and oxygen therapy (81.2–70.5 %). There were statistically significant differences between the patients who were registered as terminal and those not registered as terminal in the number of interventions applied in the final 14 days and 48 h (p = 0.01–p = 0.00) and in many of the described treatments.

Conclusion

The recognition of a patient’s terminal status in the clinical history conditions the decisions that are made and is generally associated with a lower number of interventions.