Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37162595›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2023

The role of clinical phenotypes in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for very old patients in the ICU.

Oded Mousai, Lola Tafoureau, Tamar Yovell, Hans Flaatten, Bertrand Guidet, Michael Beil, Dylan de Lange, Susannah Leaver, Wojciech Szczeklik, Jesper Fjolner and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03370692 (Development and Validation of a Prognostic Score in the Very Old ICU Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03370692 completednot on this map

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Score in the Very Old ICU Patients (≥80 Years)

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of BergenRan2018 to 2019Enrolled3,900ConditionsAged, 80 and Over, Critical CareArmsCognitive assesment, Frailty assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Oded Mousai *School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
Lola Tafoureau *School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
Tamar Yovell *School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
Hans FlaattenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Bertrand GuidetSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, service MIR, Paris, France.
Michael BeilDepartment of Medical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University and Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Dylan de LangeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Susannah LeaverGeneral Intensive Care, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Wojciech SzczeklikCenter for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Jesper FjolnerDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark.
Akiva NachshonGeneral Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University and Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Peter Vernon van HeerdenGeneral Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University and Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Leo JoskowiczSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
Christian JungDivision of Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. christian.jung@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8325-250X
Gal HyamsSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
Sigal SviriDepartment of Medical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University and Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem · ILHadassah Medical Center · ILHaukeland University Hospital · NOHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEInserm · FRJagiellonian University · PLRegionshospitalet Viborg · DKSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) by withholding or withdrawing interventional therapies is considered appropriate if there is no expectation of beneficial outcome. Prognostication for very old patients is challenging due to the substantial biological and functional heterogeneity in that group. We have previously identified seven phenotypes in that cohort with distinct patterns of acute and geriatric characteristics. This study investigates the relationship between these phenotypes and decisions to limit LST in the ICU.

methodsThis study is a post hoc analysis of the prospective observational VIP2 study in patients aged 80 years or older admitted to ICUs in 22 countries. The VIP2 study documented demographic, acute and geriatric characteristics as well as organ support and decisions to limit LST in the ICU. Phenotypes were identified by clustering analysis of admission characteristics. Patients who were assigned to one of seven phenotypes (n = 1268) were analysed with regard to limitations of LST.

resultsThe incidence of decisions to withhold or withdraw LST was 26.5% and 8.1%, respectively. The two phenotypes describing patients with prominent geriatric features and a phenotype representing the oldest old patients with low severity of the critical condition had the largest odds for withholding decisions. The discriminatory performance of logistic regression models in predicting limitations of LST after admission to the ICU was the best after combining phenotype, ventilatory support and country as independent variables.

conclusionsClinical phenotypes on ICU admission predict limitations of LST in the context of cultural norms (country). These findings can guide further research into biases and preferences involved in the decision-making about LST. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT03370692 registered on 12 December 2017.

Indexed as

Geriatric patientsIntensive carePhenotypesWithdrawingWithholding

Identifiers

PMID37162595
PMCPMC10170430
OpenAlexW4376121943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.