Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Med Care. 2010 Feb;48(2):125-32. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c161e4.
Concern regarding wide variations in spending and intensive care unit use for patients at the end of life hinges on the assumption that such treatment offers little or no survival benefit.
To explore the relationship between hospital "end-of-life" (EOL) treatment intensity and postadmission survival.
Retrospective cohort analysis of Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council discharge data April 2001 to March 2005 linked to vital statistics data through September 2005 using hospital-level correlation, admission-level marginal structural logistic regression, and pooled logistic regression to approximate a Cox survival model.
A total of 1,021,909 patients > or =65 years old, incurring 2,216,815 admissions in 169 Pennsylvania acute care hospitals.
EOL treatment intensity (a summed index of standardized intensive care unit and life-sustaining treatment use among patients with a high predicted probability of dying [PPD] at admission) and 30- and 180-day postadmission mortality.
There was a nonlinear negative relationship between hospital EOL treatment intensity and 30-day mortality among all admissions, although patients with higher PPD derived the greatest benefit. Compared with admission at an average intensity hospital, admission to a hospital 1 standard deviation below versus 1 standard deviation above average intensity resulted in an adjusted odds ratio of mortality for admissions at low PPD of 1.06 (1.04-1.08) versus 0.97 (0.96-0.99); average PPD: 1.06 (1.04-1.09) versus 0.97 (0.96-0.99); and high PPD: 1.09 (1.07-1.11) versus 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively. By 180 days, the benefits to intensity attenuated (low PPD: 1.03 [1.01-1.04] vs. 1.00 [0.98-1.01]; average PPD: 1.03 [1.02-1.05] vs. 1.00 [0.98-1.01]; and high PPD: 1.06 [1.04-1.09] vs. 1.00 [0.98-1.02]), respectively.
Admission to higher EOL treatment intensity hospitals is associated with small gains in postadmission survival. The marginal returns to intensity diminish for admission to hospitals above average EOL treatment intensity and wane with time.
人们对生命末期患者的治疗费用和重症监护病房使用存在广泛差异表示担忧,其主要原因是人们认为此类治疗方法的生存获益微乎其微。
探索医院“生命终末期”(EOL)治疗强度与入院后存活时间之间的关系。
利用宾夕法尼亚州医疗保健成本控制委员会 2001 年 4 月至 2005 年 3 月的出院数据,并通过 2005 年 9 月前与生命统计数据相链接,采用医院层面相关性、入院层面边缘结构逻辑回归以及汇总逻辑回归来近似 Cox 生存模型,对宾夕法尼亚州 169 家急性护理医院的 1021909 例年龄≥65 岁患者的 2216815 例入院情况进行回顾性队列分析。
EOL 治疗强度(对入院时预测病死率高的患者标准化重症监护病房和生命维持治疗使用的总和指数)以及 30 天和 180 天的入院后死亡率。
所有入院患者的医院 EOL 治疗强度与 30 天死亡率之间存在非线性负相关关系,但病死率较高的患者获益最大。与在平均治疗强度医院入院相比,在病死率低、低 1 个标准差的医院入院与病死率低、高 1 个标准差的医院入院相比,调整后的死亡率比值比(OR)分别为 1.06(1.04-1.08)与 0.97(0.96-0.99);平均病死率:1.06(1.04-1.09)与 0.97(0.96-0.99);病死率高:1.09(1.07-1.11)与 0.97(0.95-0.99)。180 天后,强度的获益减弱(病死率低:1.03(1.01-1.04)与 1.00(0.98-1.01);平均病死率:1.03(1.02-1.05)与 1.00(0.98-1.01);病死率高:1.06(1.04-1.09)与 1.00(0.98-1.02))。
入住 EOL 治疗强度较高的医院与入院后生存时间略有增加相关。对于入住高于平均 EOL 治疗强度的医院的患者,强度的边际收益逐渐减少,并且随着时间的推移而逐渐减少。