Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2020 Dec 2;24(1):672.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03402-7.

Impact of advance directives on the variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment

Margot Smirdec  1 , Mercé Jourdain  2 , Virginie Guastella  3 , Céline Lambert  4 , Jean-Christophe Richard  5 , Laurent Argaud  6 , Samir Jaber  7 , Kada Klouche  8 , Anne Medard  9 , Jean Reignier  10 , Jean-Philippe Rigaud  11 , Jean-Marc Doise  12 , Russell Chabanne  13 , Bertrand Souweine  14 , Jeremy Bourenne  15 , Julie Delmas  16 , Pierre-Marie Bertrand  17 , Philippe Verdier  18 , Jean-Pierre Quenot  19 , Cecile Aubron  20 , Nathanael Eisenmann  21 , Pierre Asfar  22 , Alexandre Fratani  23 , Jean Dellamonica  24 , Nicolas Terzi  25 , Jean-Michel Constantin  26 , Axelle Van Lander  27   28 , Renaud Guerin  29 , Bruno Pereira  4 , Alexandre Lautrette  30   31   32
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Impact of advance directives on the variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment

Margot Smirdec et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: There is wide variability between intensivists in the decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (DFLST). Advance directives (ADs) allow patients to communicate their end-of-life wishes to physicians. We assessed whether ADs reduced variability in DFLSTs between intensivists.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, simulation study. Eight patients expressed their wishes in ADs after being informed about DFLSTs by an intensivist-investigator. The participating intensivists answered ten questions about the DFLSTs of each patient in two scenarios, referring to patients' characteristics without ADs (round 1) and then with (round 2). DFLST score ranged from 0 (no-DFLST) to 10 (DFLST for all questions). The main outcome was variability in DFLSTs between intensivists, expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD).

Results: A total of 19,680 decisions made by 123 intensivists from 27 ICUs were analyzed. The DFLST score was higher with ADs than without (6.02 95% CI [5.85; 6.19] vs 4.92 95% CI [4.75; 5.10], p < 0.001). High inter-intensivist variability did not change with ADs (RSD: 0.56 (round 1) vs 0.46 (round 2), p = 0.84). Inter-intensivist agreement on DFLSTs was weak with ADs (intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.28). No factor associated with DFLSTs was identified. A qualitative analysis of ADs showed focus on end-of-life wills, unwanted things and fear of pain.

Conclusions: ADs increased the DFLST rate but did not reduce variability between the intensivists. In the decision-making process using ADs, the intensivist's decision took priority. Further research is needed to improve the matching of the physicians' decision with the patient's wishes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03013530. Registered 6 January 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03013530 .

Keywords: Advance directives; Decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment; ICU.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The others authors have no financial conflict of interest related to this study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportions of DFLSTs in round 1 (a) and round 2 (b). Legend: Black bars correspond to DFLSTs; Gray bars correspond to partial DFLSTs; White bars correspond to no-DFLSTs. S1: Scenario 1; S2: scenario 2; Q: Question
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Main themes emerging from the advance directives
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lobo SM, De Simoni FHB, Jakob SM, Estella A, Vadi S, Bluethgen A, et al. Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: a worldwide perspective. Chest. 2017;152:321–329. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.176. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lautrette A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Bertrand P-M, Goldgran-Toledano D, Jamali S, Laurent V, et al. Respective impact of no escalation of treatment, withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment on ICU patients’ prognosis: a multicenter study of the Outcomerea Research Group. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1763–1772. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3944-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ciroldi M, Cariou A, Adrie C, Annane D, Castelain V, Cohen Y, et al. Ability of family members to predict patient’s consent to critical care research. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:807–813. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0582-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lautrette A, Peigne V, Watts J, Souweine B, Azoulay E. Surrogate decision makers for incompetent ICU patients: a European perspective. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:714–719. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283196319. - DOI - PubMed
    1. White DB, Ernecoff N, Buddadhumaruk P, Hong S, Weissfeld L, Curtis JR, et al. Prevalence of and factors related to discordance about prognosis between physicians and surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients. JAMA. 2016;315:2086–2094. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5351. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data