Patient age and decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments from seriously ill, hospitalized adults. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment

BACKGROUND: Patient age may influence decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments, independent of patients' preferences for or ability to benefit from such treatments. Controversy exists about the appropriateness of using age as a criterion for making treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of age on decisions to withhold life-sustaining therapies. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five medical centers participating in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). PATIENTS: 9105 hospitalized adults who had one of nine illnesses associated with an average 6-month mortality rate of 50%. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were the presence and timing of decisions to withhold ventilator support, surgery, and dialysis. Adjustment was made for sociodemographic characteristics, prognoses, baseline function, patients' preferences for life-extending care, and physicians' understanding of patients' preferences for life-extending care. RESULTS: The median patient age was 63 years; 44% of patients were women, and 53% survived to 180 days. In adjusted analyses, older age was associated with higher rates of withholding each of the three life-sustaining treatments studied. For ventilator support, the rate of decisions to withhold therapy increased 15% with each decade of age (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.19]); for surgery, the increase per decade was 19% (hazard ratio, 1.19 [CI, 1.12 to 1.27]); and for dialysis, the increase per decade was 12% (hazard ratio, 1.12 [CI, 1.06 to 1.19]). Physicians underestimated older patients' preferences for life-extending care; adjustment for this underestimation resulted in an attenuation of the association between age and decisions to withhold treatments. CONCLUSION: Even after adjustment for differences in patients' prognoses and preferences, older age was associated with higher rates of decisions to withhold ventilator support, surgery, and dialysis.     

Older age, aggressiveness of care, and survival for seriously ill, hospitalized adults. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with less aggressive treatment and higher short-term mortality due to serious illness. It is not known whether less aggressive care contributes to this survival disadvantage in elderly persons. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of age on short-term survival, independent of baseline patient characteristics and aggressiveness of care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five academic medical centers participating in SUPPORT (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments). PATIENTS: 9105 adults hospitalized with one of nine serious illnesses associated with an average 6-month mortality rate of 50%. MEASUREMENTS: Survival through 180 days of follow-up. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, adjustment was made for patient sex; ethnicity; income; baseline physical function; severity of illness; intensity of hospital resource use; presence of do-not-resuscitate orders on study day 1; and presence and timing of decisions to withhold transfer to the intensive care unit, major surgery, dialysis, blood transfusion, vasopressors, and tube feeding. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) patient age was 63 +/- 16 years, 44% of patients were female, and 16% were black. Overall survival to 6 months was 53%. In analyses that adjusted for sex, ethnicity, income, baseline functional status, severity of illness, and aggressiveness of care, each additional year of age increased the hazard of death by 1.0% (hazard ratio, 1.010 [95% CI, 1.007 to 1.013]) for patients 18 to 70 years of age and by 2.0% (hazard ratio, 1.020 [CI, 1.013 to 1.026]) for patients older than 70 years of age. Adjusted estimates of age-specific 6-month mortality rates were 44% for 55-year-old patients, 48% for 65-year-old patients, 53% for 75-year-old patients, and 60% for 85-year-old patients. Similar results were obtained in analyses that did not adjust for aggressiveness of care. Acute physiology and diagnosis had much larger relative contributions to prognosis than age. CONCLUSIONS: We found a modest independent association between patient age and short-term survival of serious illness. This age effect was not explained by the current practice of providing less aggressive care to elderly patients.     

Resource use and survival of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure: differences in care by specialty of the attending physician. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that specialty care is more costly but may produce improved outcomes for patients with acute cardiac illnesses. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with congestive heart failure who are cared for by cardiologists experienced differences in costs, care patterns, and survival compared with patients of generalists. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. teaching hospitals between 1989 and 1994. PATIENTS: 1298 patients hospitalized with an exacerbation of congestive heart failure. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital costs; average daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) score; and survival censored at 30, 180, and 365 days and 31 December 1994. RESULTS: Compared with patients of generalists, patients of cardiologists were younger (mean age, 63.3 and 71.4 years; P < 0.001) and had lower Acute Physiology Scores at the time of admission (35.1 and 36.7; P < 0.001) but were more likely to have a history of ventricular arrhythmias (21.0% and 10.2%; P < 0.001). At 6 months, 201 (27%) patients of cardiologists and 149 (27%) patients of generalists had died. After adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics and severity of illness, patients of cardiologists incurred costs that were 42.9% (95% CI, 27.8% to 59.8%) higher and average daily TISS scores that were 2.83 points (CI, 1.96 to 3.68 points) higher than those of patients of generalists. Patients of cardiologists were more likely to undergo right-heart catheterization (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9 [CI, 1.7 to 4.9]) or cardiac catheterization (adjusted odds ratio, 3.9 [CI, 2.4 to 6.2]) and had higher odds for transfer to an intensive care unit and electrocardiographic monitoring. Adjusted survival did not differ significantly between groups at 30 days; however, there was a trend toward improved survival among patients of cardiologists at 1 year (adjusted relative hazard, 0.82 [CI, 0.65 to 1.04]) and at maximum follow-up (adjusted relative hazard, 0.80 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure, cardiologist care was associated with greater costs and resource use and no difference in survival at 30 days of follow-up. Whether the trend toward better survival at longer follow-up represents differences in care or unadjusted illness severity is uncertain.