Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients

Bernhard Wernly; Raphael Romano Bruno; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Oscar Peñuelas; Richard Rezar; Konstantinos Raymondos; Alfonso Muriel; Bin Du; Arnaud W. Thille; Fernando Ríos; Marco González; Lorenzo Del-Sorbo; Maria Del Carmen Marín; Bruno Valle Pinheiro; Marco Antonio Soares; Nicolas Nin; Salvatore M. Maggiore; Andrew Bersten; Malte Kelm; Pravin Amin; Nahit Cakar; Gee Young Suh; Fekri Abroug; Manuel Jibaja; Dimitros Matamis; Amine Ali Zeggwagh; Yuda Sutherasan; Bertrand Guidet; Dylan W. De Lange; Michael Beil; Sigal Svri; Vernon van Heerden; Hans Flaatten; Antonio Anzueto; Venet Osmani; Andrés Esteban; Christian Jung

doi:10.4187/RESPCARE.08547

Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients

Bernhard Wernly, Raphael Romano Bruno, Fernando Frutos-Vivar, Oscar Peñuelas, Richard Rezar, Konstantinos Raymondos, Alfonso Muriel, Bin Du, Arnaud W. Thille, Fernando Ríos, Marco González, Lorenzo Del-Sorbo, Maria Del Carmen Marín, Bruno Valle Pinheiro, Marco Antonio Soares, Nicolas Nin, Salvatore M. Maggiore, Andrew Bersten, Malte Kelm, Pravin AminNahit Cakar, Gee Young Suh, Fekri Abroug, Manuel Jibaja, Dimitros Matamis, Amine Ali Zeggwagh, Yuda Sutherasan, Bertrand Guidet, Dylan W. De Lange, Michael Beil, Sigal Svri, Vernon van Heerden, Hans Flaatten, Antonio Anzueto, Venet Osmani, Andrés Esteban, Christian Jung

Producción científica: Contribución a una revista › Artículo en revista científica indexada › revisión exhaustiva

2 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective anal-ysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65–79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P <.001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H₂O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P <.001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16–1.49], P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified.

Idioma original	Inglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)	814-821
Número de páginas	8
Publicación	Respiratory Care
Volumen	66
N.º	5
DOI	https://doi.org/10.4187/RESPCARE.08547
Estado	Publicada - 1 may. 2021
Publicado de forma externa	Sí

Nota bibliográfica

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Daedalus Enterprises.

ODS de las Naciones Unidas

Este resultado contribuye a los siguientes Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible

Acceder al documento

10.4187/RESPCARE.08547

Citar esto

Wernly, B., Bruno, R. R., Frutos-Vivar, F., Peñuelas, O., Rezar, R., Raymondos, K., Muriel, A., Du, B., Thille, A. W., Ríos, F., González, M., Del-Sorbo, L., Marín, M. D. C., Pinheiro, B. V., Soares, M. A., Nin, N., Maggiore, S. M., Bersten, A., Kelm, M., ... Jung, C. (2021). Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients. Respiratory Care, 66(5), 814-821. https://doi.org/10.4187/RESPCARE.08547

@article{afeeb90f6c924b1baa915c3e008aef75,

title = "Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective anal-ysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65–79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P <.001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P <.001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16–1.49], P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified.",

keywords = "Critically ill, Elderly subjects, ICU, Mechan-ical ventilation, Risk scores, Risk stratification",

author = "Bernhard Wernly and Bruno, {Raphael Romano} and Fernando Frutos-Vivar and Oscar Pe{\~n}uelas and Richard Rezar and Konstantinos Raymondos and Alfonso Muriel and Bin Du and Thille, {Arnaud W.} and Fernando R{\'i}os and Marco Gonz{\'a}lez and Lorenzo Del-Sorbo and Mar{\'i}n, {Maria Del Carmen} and Pinheiro, {Bruno Valle} and Soares, {Marco Antonio} and Nicolas Nin and Maggiore, {Salvatore M.} and Andrew Bersten and Malte Kelm and Pravin Amin and Nahit Cakar and Suh, {Gee Young} and Fekri Abroug and Manuel Jibaja and Dimitros Matamis and Zeggwagh, {Amine Ali} and Yuda Sutherasan and Bertrand Guidet and {De Lange}, {Dylan W.} and Michael Beil and Sigal Svri and {van Heerden}, Vernon and Hans Flaatten and Antonio Anzueto and Venet Osmani and Andr{\'e}s Esteban and Christian Jung",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Daedalus Enterprises.",

year = "2021",

month = may,

day = "1",

doi = "10.4187/RESPCARE.08547",

language = "Ingl{\'e}s",

volume = "66",

pages = "814--821",

journal = "Respiratory Care",

issn = "0020-1324",

publisher = "Daedalus Enterprises Inc.",

number = "5",

}

Wernly, B, Bruno, RR, Frutos-Vivar, F, Peñuelas, O, Rezar, R, Raymondos, K, Muriel, A, Du, B, Thille, AW, Ríos, F, González, M, Del-Sorbo, L, Marín, MDC, Pinheiro, BV, Soares, MA, Nin, N, Maggiore, SM, Bersten, A, Kelm, M, Amin, P, Cakar, N, Suh, GY, Abroug, F, Jibaja, M, Matamis, D, Zeggwagh, AA, Sutherasan, Y, Guidet, B, De Lange, DW, Beil, M, Svri, S, van Heerden, V, Flaatten, H, Anzueto, A, Osmani, V, Esteban, A & Jung, C 2021, 'Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients', Respiratory Care, vol. 66, n.º 5, pp. 814-821. https://doi.org/10.4187/RESPCARE.08547

TY - JOUR

T1 - Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients

AU - Wernly, Bernhard

AU - Bruno, Raphael Romano

AU - Frutos-Vivar, Fernando

AU - Peñuelas, Oscar

AU - Rezar, Richard

AU - Raymondos, Konstantinos

AU - Muriel, Alfonso

AU - Du, Bin

AU - Thille, Arnaud W.

AU - Ríos, Fernando

AU - González, Marco

AU - Del-Sorbo, Lorenzo

AU - Marín, Maria Del Carmen

AU - Pinheiro, Bruno Valle

AU - Soares, Marco Antonio

AU - Nin, Nicolas

AU - Maggiore, Salvatore M.

AU - Bersten, Andrew

AU - Kelm, Malte

AU - Amin, Pravin

AU - Cakar, Nahit

AU - Suh, Gee Young

AU - Abroug, Fekri

AU - Jibaja, Manuel

AU - Matamis, Dimitros

AU - Zeggwagh, Amine Ali

AU - Sutherasan, Yuda

AU - Guidet, Bertrand

AU - De Lange, Dylan W.

AU - Beil, Michael

AU - Svri, Sigal

AU - van Heerden, Vernon

AU - Flaatten, Hans

AU - Anzueto, Antonio

AU - Osmani, Venet

AU - Esteban, Andrés

AU - Jung, Christian

PY - 2021/5/1

Y1 - 2021/5/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective anal-ysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65–79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P <.001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P <.001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16–1.49], P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified.

AB - BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective anal-ysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65–79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P <.001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P <.001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16–1.49], P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified.

KW - Critically ill

KW - Elderly subjects

KW - ICU

KW - Mechan-ical ventilation

KW - Risk scores

KW - Risk stratification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106069446&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4187/RESPCARE.08547

DO - 10.4187/RESPCARE.08547

M3 - Artículo en revista científica indexada

C2 - 33653910

AN - SCOPUS:85106069446

SN - 0020-1324

VL - 66

SP - 814

EP - 821

JO - Respiratory Care

JF - Respiratory Care

IS - 5

ER -

Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients

Resumen

Nota bibliográfica

ODS de las Naciones Unidas

Acceder al documento

Huella

Citar esto