Teno J M, Murphy D, Lynn J, Tosteson A, Desbiens N, Connors A F, Hamel M B, Wu A, Phillips R, Wenger N
Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH 03755-3863.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 Nov;42(11):1202-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06990.x.
Advocates for health care reform and others claim that significant savings could be achieved if "futile" care were eliminated. Our objective was to provide an initial estimate of the effects of a public policy that would preclude futile life-sustaining treatments, defined as those employed despite < or = 1% chance of surviving for 2 months.
Simulation using data from an observational cohort study.
Five academic medical centers.
Seriously ill hospitalized adults enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment (SUPPORT).
We examined the impact of prognosis-based futility guidelines on survival and hospital length of stay on a cohort of seriously ill adults. We calculated the number of days of hospitalization that would not be used if, on the third study day, life-sustaining treatment had been stopped or not initiated for subjects with estimated 2-month survival probability of < or = 1%.
Of the 4301 patients, 115 (2.7%) had an estimated chance of 2-month survival of < or = 1%. All but one of these 115 subjects died within 6 months. Almost 86% died within 5 days of prognosis. At the time of death, 92 subjects (80.0%) had had no attempt at resuscitation; 35 (30.4%) had had a life-sustaining mechanical ventilator withdrawn. A Do-Not-Resuscitate order was written either before (n = 61) or within 5 days (n = 18) of reaching this prognosis for 68.6% of the patients. These 115 subjects had total hospital charges of $8.8 million. By forgoing or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in accord with a strict 1% futility guideline, 199 of 1,688 hospital days (10.8%) would be forgone, with estimated savings of $1.2 million in hospital charges. Nearly 75% of the savings in hospital days would have resulted from stopping treatment for 12 patients, six of whom were under 51 years old, and one of whom lived 10 months.
Patients at a high risk of dying can be identified prospectively. Implementation of a strict, prognosis-based futility guideline on the third day of a serious illness would result in modest savings.
医疗改革倡导者及其他人士称,如果消除“无效”治疗,可实现大幅节省。我们的目的是初步估计一项公共政策的效果,该政策将排除无效的维持生命治疗,无效治疗定义为尽管存活2个月的几率≤1%仍采用的治疗。
使用观察性队列研究数据进行模拟。
五家学术医疗中心。
参加了解治疗结果和风险的预后及偏好研究(SUPPORT)的重症住院成人患者。
我们研究了基于预后的无效指南对一组重症成人患者的生存和住院时间的影响。我们计算了如果在研究的第三天,对于估计2个月生存概率≤1%的患者停止或不启动维持生命治疗,原本不会使用的住院天数。
在4301名患者中,115名(2.7%)估计2个月生存概率≤1%。这115名患者中除一人外,均在6个月内死亡。几乎86%在预后5天内死亡。死亡时,92名患者(80.0%)未尝试进行复苏;35名(30.4%)撤除了维持生命的机械通气。68.6%的患者在达到此预后之前(n = 61)或5天内(n = 18)下达了不进行心肺复苏的医嘱。这115名患者的总住院费用为880万美元。按照严格的1%无效指南放弃或撤除维持生命治疗,1688个住院日中的199个(10.8%)将被节省,估计可节省住院费用120万美元。近75%的住院日节省是由于对12名患者停止治疗,其中6名年龄在51岁以下,1名存活了10个月。
可以前瞻性地识别出高死亡风险患者。在重病第三天实施严格的、基于预后的无效指南将带来适度节省。