Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The ETHICA study (part I): elderly's thoughts about intensive care unit admission for life-sustaining treatments.

PURPOSE: To assess preferences among individuals aged ≥80 years for a future hypothetical critical illness requiring life-sustaining treatments.

METHODS: Observational cohort study of consecutive community-dwelling elderly individuals previously hospitalised in medical or surgical wards and of volunteers residing in nursing homes or assisted-living facilities. The participants were interviewed at their place of residence after viewing films of scenarios involving the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy after a period of invasive mechanical ventilation (RRT after IMV). Demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life data were collected. Participants chose among four responses regarding life-sustaining treatments: consent, refusal, no opinion, and letting the physicians decide.

RESULTS: The sample size was 115 and the response rate 87 %. Mean participant age was 84.8 ± 3.5 years, 68 % were female, and 81 % and 71 % were independent for instrumental activities and activities of daily living, respectively. Refusal rates among the elderly were 27 % for NIV, 43 % for IMV, and 63 % for RRT (after IMV). Demographic characteristics associated with refusal were married status for NIV [relative risk (RR), 2.9; 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI), 1.5-5.8; p = 0.002] and female gender for IMV (RR, 2.4; 95 %CI, 1.2-4.5; p = 0.01) and RRT (after IMV) (RR, 2.7; 95 %CI, 1.4-5.2; p = 0.004). Quality of life was associated with choices regarding all three life-sustaining treatments.

CONCLUSIONS: Independent elderly individuals were rather reluctant to accept life-sustaining treatments, especially IMV and RRT (after IMV). Their quality of life was among the determinants of their choices.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app