Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
J Palliat Med. 2024 Apr;27(4):508-514. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2023.0289.
Some clinicians suspect that patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders receive less aggressive care. Extrapolation from code status to goals of care could cause significant harm. This study asked the question: Do DNR orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) lead to a decrease in invasive interventions? This was a retrospective cohort study of ICU patients from three teaching hospitals. All ICU patients were assessed for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were medical futility and death, comfort care, or ICU discharge <48 hours after DNR initiation. Five hundred thirty-six patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-five were included in the final analysis. Primary outcomes were occurrence of invasive interventions after DNR initiation-surgical operation, central line, ventilation, dialysis, or other procedure. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic administration, blood transfusion, mortality, and discharge location. Patients with DNR orders underwent fewer surgical operations (14.5% vs. 31.1%, = 0.002), but more central lines (42.1% vs. 23.0%, = 0.009), ventilator use (49.0% vs. 18.9%, < 0.001), and dialysis (20.0% vs. 4.1%, = 0.002), compared with patients without DNR orders. Transfusions and antibiotic use decreased similarly over admission for both groups (transfusions: β = 1.25; = 0.59; and antibiotics: β = 1.44; = 0.27). Mortality and hospice discharges were higher for DNR patients ( < 0.001.). DNR status did not decrease the number of nonoperative interventions patients received as compared with full code counterparts. Although differences in populations existed, patients with DNR orders were likely to receive a similar number of invasive interventions. This finding suggests that providers do not wholesale limit these options for patients with code status limitations.
一些临床医生怀疑,下达了“不复苏”(Do Not Resuscitate,DNR)医嘱的患者接受的治疗不那么积极。从代码状态推断出的治疗目标可能会造成严重的伤害。本研究提出了这样一个问题:重症监护病房(Intensive Care Unit,ICU)中的 DNR 医嘱是否会导致侵入性干预减少?这是一项对来自三所教学医院的 ICU 患者进行的回顾性队列研究。所有 ICU 患者均被评估是否符合纳入标准。排除标准为医疗无效和死亡、舒适护理或 DNR 启动后 48 小时内 ICU 出院。536 名患者符合纳入标准,其中 145 名患者被纳入最终分析。主要结局是 DNR 启动后发生的侵入性干预,包括手术操作、中央导管、通气、透析或其他程序。次要结局是抗生素使用、输血、死亡率和出院地点。有 DNR 医嘱的患者接受的手术操作较少(14.5%对 31.1%, = 0.002),但接受的中央导管较多(42.1%对 23.0%, = 0.009)、呼吸机使用较多(49.0%对 18.9%, < 0.001)和透析较多(20.0%对 4.1%, = 0.002)。与没有 DNR 医嘱的患者相比,两组的输血和抗生素使用在入院期间均呈类似的下降趋势(输血:β = 1.25; = 0.59;抗生素:β = 1.44; = 0.27)。DNR 患者的死亡率和临终关怀出院率较高( < 0.001)。与完全有反应的患者相比,DNR 状态并没有减少患者接受的非手术干预数量。尽管存在人群差异,但 DNR 医嘱患者可能会接受类似数量的侵入性干预。这一发现表明,提供者不会全面限制有代码状态限制的患者接受这些治疗方案。