0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters | ONLINE FIRST

On the Benefit of Intensive Care for Very Old Patients FREE

Ariane Boumendil, PhD; Aurélien Latouche, PhD; Bertrand Guidet, MD, PhD; ICE-CUB Study Group
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Université de Versailles St-Quentin, UPRES EA 25 06, Paris, France (Drs Boumendil and Latouche); Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Unité de Recherche en Épidémiologie Systèmes d’Information et Modélisation (U707), Paris (Drs Boumendil and Guidet); Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) Univ Paris 06 (Drs Boumendil and Guidet); INSERM, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (U1018), Biostatistics Team, Villejuif, France (Dr Latouche); and Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Medical ICU, Paris (Pr Guidet).


Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):1116-1117. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.102.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Although intensive care unit (ICU) admission of very old patients has been discussed for almost 20 years, the overall benefit of ICU admission for very old patients remains unknown. The best design to address the benefits of ICU admission, a randomized trial, was claimed to be infeasible on ethical grounds.1

Observational studies generally report lower crude mortality rates for patients admitted to an ICU than in those refused,2 yet studies of very old patients find similar crude mortality rates.3 A few studies have reported adjusted results using binary outcome models, but they did not focus on elderly patients and had contradictory conclusions.1,4 Comparisons of survival in admitted and nonadmitted patients is seldom published. Wunsh et al5 showed that elderly ICU survivors had a lower long-term survival than hospital discharge survivors who did not receive ICU care, matched on age, sex, race, and whether they had surgery. Survival curve comparisons require adjustment on more confounding factors such as comorbidities and initial severity.

To analyze the effect of ICU admission on mid- or long-term outcome, it is mandatory to target the “at-risk” population. All but 1 study on ICU admission failed to take into account pre-triage made by physicians from other specialties. The Intensive Care Elderly CUB-Réa (ICE-CUB) study, which focused on patients older than 80 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a condition potentially warranting ICU admission, reported the pre-triage made by ED physicians.3

Herein, we compare the survival between ICU admitted and nonadmitted patients from the ICE-CUB study with adjusted Cox model and adjusted survival curves using inverse probability weights (IPW) for confounder control.

The primary objective of the ICE-CUB study was to identify criteria used by ED and ICU physicians to admit or refuse patients to the ICU. All patients older than 80 years visiting the ED of 15 hospitals in the Paris metropolitan region with a condition potentially requiring ICU admission were included in the study between November 2004 and January 2006. Study design and inclusion criteria are detailed elsewhere.3 The effect of ICU admission on survival was first estimated by a Cox model adjusted for age in years, sex, main diagnosis category, functional and nutritional status, and diagnosis of cancer and was stratified by initial severity as assessed by the Mortality Probability Model at admission (MPM0). Second, to account for heterogeneity across centers, a random effect was introduced and its significance was tested with a likelihood ratio. Third, adjusted survival curves were produced using an IPW Kaplan-Meier estimation, where each individual was assigned a weight proportional to the probability he or she had of belonging to the group he or she actually belongs to.6

During the 14-month study period, 2646 patients older than 80 years were included in the study, and 327 (12.4%) were admitted to the ICU following the ED visit and 52 (2%) after initial stay in another ward (eTable). Median follow-up time was 185 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 184-186 days). Panel A of the Figure displays the unadjusted survival curves for admitted vs nonadmitted patients. The estimated hazard ratio comparing admitted vs nonadmitted patients from the adjusted Cox model was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.01-1.43). A Cox model with center as a random effect (P = .003) yielded a hazard ratio of 1.16 (95% CI, 0.93-1.45). Panel B of the Figure is a plot of the adjusted survival curves, showing a decrease in survival for patients admitted to the ICU compared with those not admitted (estimated IPW hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

A, Unadjusted survival curves for 2646 patients older than 80 years visiting the emergency department with a condition potentially warranting ICU admission; B, Inverse probability weighted survival curves. ICU indicates intensive care unit.

Graphic Jump Location

In this observational prospective cohort study, we were unable to show any benefit of ICU admission for very old patients. We chose to focus on long-term survival, more relevant than hospital survival, to investigate potential ICU benefit.

This result should be interpreted cautiously because (1) we had no information on therapeutic limitation and (2) patients were not randomized and therefore residual confounding may still be present. Moreover, we cannot draw any conclusion on the benefit of ICU admission for accurately selected very old patients.

Correspondence: Dr Boumendil, UPRES EA 2506 “Santé Environnement Vieillissement,” Centre de Gérontologie de l'Hôpital Sainte-Périne, 49 rue Mirabeau, 75016 Paris, France (ariane.boumendil@sat.aphp.fr).

Published Online: March 28, 2011. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.102

Author Contributions: Dr Boumendil had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Boumendil, Latouche, and Guidet. Acquisition of data: Boumendil. Analysis and interpretation of data: Boumendil and Latouche. Drafting of the manuscript: Boumendil and Latouche. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Boumendil, Latouche, and Guidet. Statistical analysis: Boumendil and Latouche. Obtained funding: Boumendil and Guidet. Administrative, technical, and material support: Boumendil and Guidet. Study supervision: Guidet.

ICE-CUB Study Group Members:Unité de Recherche Clinique de l'Est Parisien: T. Simon; Scientific Committee: P. Aegerter, D. Somme, D. Pateron, and M. Garrouste; Hôpital Ambroise Paré: D. Elkharrat, F. Benhamou, and F. Jardin; Hôpital Avicenne: P. Hoang-the-dan (deceased), L. Hamza, and Y. Cohen; Hôpital Bicêtre: E. Casalino, B. Doumenc, and C. Richard; Hôpital Bichat: A. Fichelle, A. L. Guitonneau, and B. Regnier; Hôpital Cochin: C. Ginsburg, K. Takun, and J. P. Mira; Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou: A. Davido, R. Masmoudi, and J. Y. Fagon; Hôpital Jean Verdier: D. Pateron, J. Benkel, and G. Dhonneur; Hôpital Lariboisière: D. Payen de la Garanderie, P. Plaisance, and F. Baud; Hôpital Henri Mondor: E. Roupie, A. Ngako, and C. Brun-Buisson; Centre hospitalier intercommunal André Grégoire: C. Phlippoteau-Parin, and J. L. Pallot; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière: B. Riou, P. Ray, and J. Chastre; Hôpital Saint-Antoine: P. Héricord, I. Reinhart, and G. Offenstadt; Groupe Hospitalier Saint-Joseph: B. Cordier, F. Hoffman, and J. Carlet; Hôpital Tenon: D. Meyniel, P. Bouvard, and C. Mayaud; Centre hospitalier Victor Dupouy: B. Bleichner, A. M. Menn, and H. Mentec.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC AOM 03 035) and from the French Society of Intensive Care (SRLF-Bourse “Ethique/Evaluation/Qualité,” 2008).

Role of the Sponsors: The French ministry of health and the French society of intensive care had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00912600

Shmueli  ASprung  CL Assessing the in-hospital survival benefits of intensive care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21 (1) 66- 72
PubMed Link to Article
Sinuff  TKahnamoui  KCook  DJLuce  JMLevy  MMValues Ethics and Rationing in Critical Care Task Force, Rationing critical care beds: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2004;32 (7) 1588- 1597
PubMed Link to Article
Garrouste-Orgeas  MBoumendil  APateron  D  et al. ICE-CUB Group, Selection of intensive care unit admission criteria for patients aged 80 years and over and compliance of emergency and intensive care unit physicians with the selected criteria: an observational, multicenter, prospective study. Crit Care Med 2009;37 (11) 2919- 2928
PubMed Link to Article
Metcalfe  MASloggett  AMcPherson  K Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive-care units. Lancet 1997;350 (9070) 7- 11
PubMed Link to Article
Wunsch  HGuerra  CBarnato  AEAngus  DCLi  GLinde-Zwirble  WT Three-year outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries who survive intensive care. JAMA 2010;303 (9) 849- 856
PubMed Link to Article
Hernán  MA The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology 2010;21 (1) 13- 15
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

A, Unadjusted survival curves for 2646 patients older than 80 years visiting the emergency department with a condition potentially warranting ICU admission; B, Inverse probability weighted survival curves. ICU indicates intensive care unit.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Shmueli  ASprung  CL Assessing the in-hospital survival benefits of intensive care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21 (1) 66- 72
PubMed Link to Article
Sinuff  TKahnamoui  KCook  DJLuce  JMLevy  MMValues Ethics and Rationing in Critical Care Task Force, Rationing critical care beds: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2004;32 (7) 1588- 1597
PubMed Link to Article
Garrouste-Orgeas  MBoumendil  APateron  D  et al. ICE-CUB Group, Selection of intensive care unit admission criteria for patients aged 80 years and over and compliance of emergency and intensive care unit physicians with the selected criteria: an observational, multicenter, prospective study. Crit Care Med 2009;37 (11) 2919- 2928
PubMed Link to Article
Metcalfe  MASloggett  AMcPherson  K Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive-care units. Lancet 1997;350 (9070) 7- 11
PubMed Link to Article
Wunsch  HGuerra  CBarnato  AEAngus  DCLi  GLinde-Zwirble  WT Three-year outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries who survive intensive care. JAMA 2010;303 (9) 849- 856
PubMed Link to Article
Hernán  MA The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology 2010;21 (1) 13- 15
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

On the Benefit of Intensive Care for Very Old Patients
Arch Intern Med.2011;171(12):1116-1117.eTable

eTable -Download PDF (110 KB). This file requires Adobe Reader®.

eTable. Comparison of ICU admitted and not-admitted patients
Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 5

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles