Search

Prolonging life in the ICU increasingly is possible, so decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies frequently are made and communicated to patients and families or surrogates. Little is known about worldwide communication practices and influencing factors.Are there regional differences in end-of-life communication practices in ICUs worldwide?This analysis of data from a prospective, international study specifically addressed end-of-life communications in consecutive patients who died or had limitation of life-sustaining therapy over 6 months in 199 ICUs in 36 countries, grouped regionally. End-of-life decisions were recorded for each patient and ethical practice was assessed retrospectively for each ICU using a 12-point questionnaire developed previously.Of 87,951 patients admitted, 12,850 died or experienced a limitation of therapy (14.6%). Of these, 1,199 patients (9.3%) were known to have an advance directive, and wishes were elicited from 6,456 patients (50.2%). Limitations of life-sustaining therapy were implemented for 10,401 patients (80.9%), 1,970 (19.1%) of whom had mental capacity at the time, and were discussed with 1,507 patients (14.5%) and 8,461 families (81.3%). Where no discussions with patients occurred (n = 8,710), this primarily was because of a lack of mental capacity in 8,114 patients (93.2%), and where none occurred with families (n = 1,622), this primarily was because of unavailability (n = 720 [44.4%]). Regional variation was noted for all end points. In generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses, the odds for discussions with the patient or family increased by 30% (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.44; P .001) for every one-point increase in the Ethical Practice Score and by 92% (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.28-2.89; P = .002) in the presence of an advance directive.End-of-life communication with patients and families or surrogates varies markedly in different global regions. GEE analysis supports the hypothesis that communication may increase with ethical practice and an advance directive. Greater effort is needed to align treatment with patients' wishes.

Background: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, different clinical phenotypes were published. However, none of them have been validated in subsequent waves, so their current validity is unknown. The aim of the study is to validate the unsupervised cluster model developed during the first pandemic wave in a cohort of critically ill patients from the second and third pandemic waves. Methods: Retrospective, multicentre, observational study of critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease and acute respiratory failure admitted from 74 Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Spain. To validate our original phenotypes model, we assigned a phenotype to each patient of the validation cohort using the same medoids, the same number of clusters (n= 3), the same number of variables (n= 25) and the same discretisation used in the development cohort. The performance of the classification was determined by Silhouette analysis and general linear modelling. The prognostic models were validated, and their performance was measured using accuracy test and area under curve (AUC)ROC. Results: The database included a total of 2,033 patients (mean age 63[53-92] years, 1643(70.5%) male, median APACHE II score (12[9-16]) and SOFA score (4[3-6]) points. The ICU mortality rate was 27.2%. Although the application of unsupervised cluster analysis classified patients in the validation population into 3 clinical phenotypes. Phenotype A (n=1,206 patients, 59.3%), phenotype B (n=618 patients, 30.4%) and phenotype C (n=506 patients, 24.3%), the characteristics of patients within each phenotype were significantly different from the original population. Furthermore, the silhouette coefficients were close to or below zero and the inclusion of phenotype classification in a regression model did not improve the model performance (accuracy =0.78, AUC=0.78) with respect to a standard model (accuracy = 0.79, AUC=0.79) or even worsened when the model was applied to patients within each phenotype (accuracy = 0.80, AUC 0.77 for Phenotype A, accuracy=0.73, AUC= 0.67 for phenotype B and accuracy= 0.66 , AUC= 0.76 for phenotype C ) Conclusion: Models developed using machine learning techniques during the first pandemic wave cannot be applied with adequate performance to patients admitted in subsequent waves without prior validation. Trial Registration: The study was retrospectively registered (NCT 04948242) on June 30, 2021

Graphical abstract Fx1, Objetivo: Evaluar si el uso de corticoesteroides (Cs) se asocia con la mortalidad en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) en la población global y dentro de los fenotipos clínicos predeterminados Diseño: Análisis secundario de estudio multicéntrico observacional Ámbito: UCI Pacientes: Pacientes adultos con COVID-19 confirmado ingresados en 63 UCIs de España Intervención: Corticoides vs. no Corticoides Variables de interés principales: A partir del análisis no supervisado de grupos, 3 fenotipos clínicos fueron derivados y clasificados como: A: grave, B: critico and C: potencialmente mortal. Se efectuó un análisis multivariado después de un propensity optimal full matching (PS) y una regresión ponderada de Cox (HR) y análisis de Fine-Gray (sHR) para evaluar el impacto del tratamiento con Cs sobre la mortalidad en la población general y en cada fenotipo clínico. Resultados: Un total de 2.017 pacientes fueron analizados, 1.171(58%) con Cs. Después del PS, el uso de Cs no se relacionó significativamente con la mortalidad en UCI (OR:1.0,95%CI:0.98-1.15). Cs fueron administrados en 298/537(55.5%) pacientes del fenotipo “A” y no se observó asociación significativa con la mortalidad (HR=0.85[0.55-1.33]). Un total de 338/623(54.2%) pacientes del fenotipo “B” recibieron Cs sin efecto significativo sobre la mortalidad (HR=0.72[0.49-1.05]). Finalmente, 535/857(62.4%) pacientes del fenotipo “C” recibieron Cs. En este fenotipo, se evidenció un efecto protector de los Cs sobre la mortalidad HR (0.75[0.58-0.98]). Conclusión: Nuestros hallazgos alertan sobre el uso indiscriminado de Cs a dosis moderadas en todos los pacientes críticos con COVID-19. Solamente pacientes con elevado estado de inflamación podrían beneficiarse con el tratamiento con Cs.

Las infecciones se han convertido en una de las principales complicaciones de los pacientes con neumonía grave por SARS-CoV-2 que ingresan en UCI. El deficiente estado inmunitario, el desarrollo frecuente de fracaso orgánico con necesidad de tratamientos de soporte invasivos y las estancias prolongadas en áreas estructurales en gran medida saturadas de enfermos son factores de riesgo para el desarrollo de infecciones. El Grupo de Trabajo de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Sepsis GTEIS de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias SEMICYUC enfatiza la importancia de las medidas de prevención de infecciones relacionadas con los cuidados sanitarios, y de la detección y tratamiento precoz de las principales infecciones en el paciente con infección por SARS-CoV-2. La coinfección bacteriana, las infecciones respiratorias relacionadas con la ventilación mecánica, bacteriemia relacionada con el catéter, infección del tracto urinario asociado a dispositivo e infecciones oportunistas son desarrolladas. Infections have become one of the main complications of patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted in ICU. Poor immune status, frequent development of organic failure requiring invasive supportive treatments, and prolonged ICU length of stay in saturated structural areas of patients are risk factors for infection development. The Working Group on Infectious Diseases and Sepsis GTEIS of the Spanish Society of Intensive Medicine and Coronary Units SEMICYUC emphasizes the importance of infection prevention measures related to health care, the detection and early treatment of major infections in the patient with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Bacterial co-infection, respiratory infections related to mechanical ventilation, catheter-related bacteremia, device-associated urinary tract infection and opportunistic infections are review in the document.

Background More than 20% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate ARDS requiring ICU admission. The long-term respiratory sequelae in such patients remain unclear. Research Question What are the major long-term pulmonary sequelae in critical patients who survive COVID-19? Study Design and Methods Consecutive patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission were recruited and evaluated 3 months after hospitalization discharge. The follow-up comprised symptom and quality of life, anxiety and depression questionnaires, pulmonary function tests, exercise test (6-min walking test [6MWT]), and chest CT imaging. Results One hundred twenty-five patients admitted to the ICU with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 were recruited between March and June 2020. At the 3-month follow-up, 62 patients were available for pulmonary evaluation. The most frequent symptoms were dyspnea (46.7%) and cough (34.4%). Eighty-two percent of patients showed a lung diffusing capacity of less than 80%. The median distance in the 6MWT was 400 m (interquartile range, 362-440 m). CT scans showed abnormal results in 70.2% of patients, demonstrating reticular lesions in 49.1% and fibrotic patterns in 21.1%. Patients with more severe alterations on chest CT scan showed worse pulmonary function and presented more degrees of desaturation in the 6MWT. Factors associated with the severity of lung damage on chest CT scan were age and length of invasive mechanical ventilation during the ICU stay. Interpretation Three months after hospital discharge, pulmonary structural abnormalities and functional impairment are highly prevalent in patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 who required an ICU stay. Pulmonary evaluation should be considered for all critical COVID-19 survivors 3 months after discharge.

Resumen Ante la situacion excepcional de salud publica provocada por la pandemia por COVID-19, desde el grupo de etica de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina Intensiva, Critica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) se ha promovido un trabajo de consenso con el objetivo de encontrar algunas respuestas desde la etica a la encrucijada entre el incremento de personas con necesidades de atencion intensiva y la disponibilidad efectiva de medios. En un periodo muy corto de tiempo se ha cambiado el marco de ejercicio de la medicina hacia un escenario de «medicina de catastrofe», con el consecuente cambio en los parametros de toma de decisiones. En este contexto la asignacion de recursos o la priorizacion de tratamiento pasan a ser elementos cruciales, y es importante contar con un marco de referencia etico para poder tomar las decisiones clinicas necesarias. Para ello, se ha realizado un proceso de revision narrativa de la evidencia, seguida de un consenso de expertos no sistematizado, que ha tenido como resultado tanto la publicacion de un documento de posicionamiento y recomendaciones de la propia SEMICYUC, como el consenso entre 18 sociedades cientificas y 5 institutos/catedras de bioetica y cuidados paliativos de un documento marco de referencia de recomendaciones eticas generales en este contexto de crisis.

Resumen El Grupo de Trabajo de Bioetica de la SEMICYUC ha elaborado las recomendaciones en la toma de decisiones de limitacion de tratamientos de soporte vital con la aspiracion de disminuir la variabilidad en la practica clinica observada y de contribuir a la mejora de los cuidados al final de la vida del paciente critico. Ademas de abordar el marco conceptual de la limitacion de tratamientos de soporte vital y de la futilidad, desarrolla las nuevas formas de limitacion extendiendola a la adecuacion de otros tratamientos y metodos diagnosticos, ademas de planificar los posibles cursos evolutivos tras la decision de limitacion de tratamientos de soporte vital. Se enfatiza la importancia de la planificacion compartida de la asistencia sanitaria en la toma de decisiones, se presentan los cuidados intensivos orientados a la donacion y se promueve la integracion de los cuidados paliativos en el tratamiento del paciente critico en estadios del final de la vida en UCI.

The Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) Bioethics Working Group has developed recommendations on the Limitation of Advanced Life Support Treatment (LLST) decisions, with the aim of reducing variability in clinical practice and of improving end of life care in critically ill patients. The conceptual framework of LLST and futility are explained. Recommendations referred to new forms of LLST encompassing also the adequacy of other treatments and diagnostic methods are developed. In addition, planning of the possible clinical courses following the decision of LLST is commented. The importance of advanced care planning in decision-making is emphasized, and intensive care oriented towards organ donation at end of life in the critically ill patient is described. The integration of palliative care in the critical patient treatment is promoted in end of life stages in the Intensive Care Unit.

Resumen La pandemia por COVID-19 ha provocado el ingreso de un elevado numero de pacientes en UCI, generalmente por insuficiencia respiratoria severa. Desde la aparicion de los primeros casos de infeccion por SARS-CoV-2, a finales de 2019, en China, se ha publicado una cantidad ingente de recomendaciones de tratamiento de esta entidad, no siempre respaldadas por evidencia cientifica suficiente ni con el rigor metodologico necesario. Gracias al esfuerzo de distintos grupos de investigadores, actualmente disponemos de resultados de ensayos clinicos, y otro tipo de estudios, de mayor calidad. Consideramos necesario realizar un documento que incluya recomendaciones que recojan estas evidencias en cuanto al diagnostico y tratamiento de la COVID-19, pero tambien aspectos que otras guias no han contemplado y que consideramos fundamentales en el manejo del paciente critico con COVID-19. Para ello se ha creado un comite redactor, conformado por miembros de los Grupos de Trabajo de SEMICYUC mas directamente relacionados con diferentes aspectos especificos del manejo de estos pacientes.

PURPOSE: Ventilator associated-lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTIs), either ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or tracheobronchitis (VAT), accounts for most nosocomial infections in intensive care units (ICU) including. Our aim was to determine if appropriate antibiotic treatment in patients with VA-LRTI will effectively reduce mortality in patients who had cardiovascular failure.METHODS: This was a pre-planned subanalysis of a large prospective cohort of mechanically ventilated patients for at least 48 h in eight countries in two continents. Patients with a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) cardiovascular score of 4 (at the time of VA-LRTI diagnosis and needed be present for at least 12 h) were defined as having cardiovascular failure.RESULTS: VA-LRTI occurred in 689 (23.2%) out of 2960 patients and 174 (25.3%) developed cardiovascular failure. Patients with cardiovascular failure had significantly higher ICU mortality than those without (58% vs. 26.8%; p CONCLUSIONS: Patients with VA-LRTI and cardiovascular failure did not show an association to a higher ICU survival with appropriate antibiotic treatment. Additionally, we found that in patients without cardiovascular failure, appropriate antibiotic treatment conferred a survival benefit for patients only with VAP.TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01791530.

Objective To determine whether the prior usage of the flu vaccine is a risk factor for bacterial co-infection in patients with severe influenza. Design This was a retrospective observational cohort study of subjects admitted to the ICU. A propensity score matching, and logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders were carried out to evaluate the association between prior influenza vaccination and bacterial co-infection. Settings 184 ICUs in Spain due to severe influenza. Patients Patients included in the Spanish prospective flu registry. Interventions Flu vaccine prior to the hospital admission. Results A total of 4175 subjects were included in the study. 489 (11.7%) received the flu vaccine prior to develop influenza infection. Prior vaccinated patients were older 71 [61–78], and predominantly male 65.4%, with at least one comorbid condition 88.5%. Prior vaccination was not associated with bacterial co-infection in the logistic regression model (OR: 1.017; 95%CI 0.803–1.288; p = 0.885). After matching, the average treatment effect of prior influenza vaccine on bacterial co-infection was not statistically significant when assessed by propensity score matching (p = 0.87), nearest neighbor matching (p = 0.59) and inverse probability weighting (p = 0.99). Conclusions No association was identified between prior influenza vaccine and bacterial coinfection in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe influenza. Post influenza vaccination studies are necessary to continue evaluating the possible benefits.

espanolLa infeccion grave y su evolucion a sepsis son cada vez mas frecuentes y se encuentran entre las principales causas de enfermedad critica y mortalidad. El manejo adecuado es crucial para mejorar el pronostico. Este documento desarrolla tres puntos esenciales que tienen un impacto significativo en este objetivo: a) el reconocimiento temprano de los pacientes que cumplen los criterios de sepsis, b) la identificacion de aquellos pacientes que sufren una infeccion y tienen un alto riesgo de progresar a sepsis, y c) realizar una correcta eleccion y optimizacion del tratamiento antimicrobiano inicial. EnglishSevere infection and its evolution to sepsis are becoming more prevalent every day and are among the leading causes of critical illness and mortality. Proper management is crucial to improve prognosis. This document addresses three essential points that have a significant impact on this objective: a) early recognition of patients with sepsis criteria, b) identification of those patients who suffer from an infection and have a high risk of progressing to sepsis, and c) adequate selection and optimization of the initial antimicrobial treatment.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates for patients with ARDS remain high. We assessed temporal changes in the epidemiology and management of ARDS patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in European ICUs. We also investigated the association between ventilatory settings and outcome in these patients. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of two cohorts of adult ICU patients admitted between May 1-15, 2002 (SOAP study, n = 3147), and May 8-18, 2012 (ICON audit, n = 4601 admitted to ICUs in the same 24 countries as the SOAP study). ARDS was defined retrospectively using the Berlin definitions. Values of tidal volume, PEEP, plateau pressure, and FiO2 corresponding to the most abnormal value of arterial PO2 were recorded prospectively every 24 h. In both studies, patients were followed for outcome until death, hospital discharge or for 60 days. RESULTS: The frequency of ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation during the ICU stay was similar in SOAP and ICON (327[10.4%] vs. 494[10.7%], p = 0.793). The diagnosis of ARDS was established at a median of 3 (IQ: 1-7) days after admission in SOAP and 2 (1-6) days in ICON. Within 24 h of diagnosis, ARDS was mild in 244 (29.7%), moderate in 388 (47.3%), and severe in 189 (23.0%) patients. In patients with ARDS, tidal volumes were lower in the later (ICON) than in the earlier (SOAP) cohort. Plateau and driving pressures were also lower in ICON than in SOAP. ICU (134[41.1%] vs 179[36.9%]) and hospital (151[46.2%] vs 212[44.4%]) mortality rates in patients with ARDS were similar in SOAP and ICON. High plateau pressure (> 29 cmH2O) and driving pressure (> 14 cmH2O) on the first day of mechanical ventilation but not tidal volume (> 8 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) were independently associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSION: The frequency of and outcome from ARDS remained relatively stable between 2002 and 2012. Plateau pressure > 29 cmH2O and driving pressure > 14 cmH2O on the first day of mechanical ventilation but not tidal volume > 8 ml/kg PBW were independently associated with a higher risk of death. These data highlight the continued burden of ARDS and provide hypothesis-generating data for the design of future studies., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p

In view of the exceptional public health situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a consensus work has been promoted from the ethics group of the Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC), with the objective of finding some answers from ethics to the crossroads between the increase of people with intensive care needs and the effective availability of means. In a very short period, the medical practice framework has been changed to a 'catastrophe medicine' scenario, with the consequent change in the decision-making parameters. In this context, the allocation of resources or the prioritization of treatment become crucial elements, and it is important to have an ethical reference framework to be able to make the necessary clinical decisions. For this, a process of narrative review of the evidence has been carried out, followed by a unsystematic consensus of experts, which has resulted in both the publication of a position paper and recommendations from SEMICYUC itself, and the consensus between 18 scientific societies and 5 institutes/chairs of bioethics and palliative care of a framework document of reference for general ethical recommendations in this context of crisis. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical predictors associated with corticosteroid administration and its association with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with severe influenza pneumonia. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of critically ill patients with confirmed influenza pneumonia admitted to 148 ICUs in Spain between June 2009 and April 2014. Patients who received corticosteroid treatment for causes other than viral pneumonia (e.g., refractory septic shock and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbation) were excluded. Patients with corticosteroid therapy were compared with those without corticosteroid therapy. We use a propensity score (PS) matching analysis to reduce confounding factors. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Cox proportional hazards and competing risks analysis was performed to assess the impact of corticosteroids on ICU mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1846 patients with primary influenza pneumonia were enrolled. Corticosteroids were administered in 604 (32.7%) patients, with methylprednisolone the most frequently used corticosteroid (578/604 [95.7%]). The median daily dose was equivalent to 80 mg of methylprednisolone (IQR 60-120) for a median duration of 7 days (IQR 5-10). Asthma, COPD, hematological disease, and the need for mechanical ventilation were independently associated with corticosteroid use. Crude ICU mortality was higher in patients who received corticosteroids (27.5%) than in patients who did not receive corticosteroids (18.8%, p

Background Many critically ill patients who die will do so after a decision has been made to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining therapy. The objective of this study was to document the characteristics of ICU patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment, including the types of supportive treatments used, patterns of organ dysfunction, and international differences, including gross national income (GNI). Methods In this observational cohort study conducted in 730 ICUs in 84 countries, all adult patients admitted between May 8, 2012, and May 18, 2012 (except admissions for routine postoperative surveillance), were included. Results The analysis included 9,524 patients, with a hospital mortality of 24%. A decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment was reported during the ICU stay in 1,259 patients (13%), including 820 (40%) nonsurvivors and 439 (5%) survivors. Hospital mortality in patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment was 69%. The proportion of deaths in patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment ranged from 10% in South Asia to 67% in Oceania. Decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment were less frequent in low/lower-middle GNI countries than in high GNI countries (6% vs 14%; P Conclusions There is considerable worldwide variability in decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Interestingly, almost one-third of patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment left the hospital alive.

Resumen La estandarizacion de la medicina intensiva puede mejorar el tratamiento del paciente critico. No obstante, estos programas de estandarizacion no se han aplicado de forma generalizada en las unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI). El objetivo de este trabajo es elaborar las recomendaciones para la estandarizacion del tratamiento de los pacientes criticos. Se selecciono un panel de expertos de los trece grupos de trabajo (GT) de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina Intensiva, Critica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), elegido por su experiencia clinica y/o cientifica para la realizacion de las recomendaciones. Se analizo la literatura publicada entre 2002 y 2016 sobre diferentes topicos de los pacientes criticos. En reuniones de cada GT los expertos discutieron las propuestas y sintetizaron las conclusiones, que fueron finalmente aprobadas por los GT despues de un amplio proceso de revision interna realizado entre diciembre de 2015 y diciembre de 2016. Finalmente, se elaboraron un total de 65 recomendaciones, 5 por cada uno de los 13 GT. Estas recomendaciones se basan en la opinion de expertos y en el conocimiento cientifico y pretenden servir de guia para los intensivistas como una ayuda en el manejo de los pacientes criticos.

Importance End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time.Objective To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years.Design, Setting, and Participants Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision.Exposures Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort.Main Outcomes and Measures End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists.Results Of 13 625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P Conclusions and Relevance Among patients who had treatment limitations or died in 22 European ICUs in 2015-2016, compared with data reported from the same ICUs in 1999-2000, limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly more frequently and death without limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly less frequently. These findings suggest a shift in end-of-life practices in European ICUs, but the study is limited in that it excluded patients who survived ICU hospitalization without treatment limitations. Importance: End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time. Objective: To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision. Exposures: Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists. Results: Of 13625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the empirical therapy with fluconazole or an echinocandin on 30- and 90-day mortality in critically ill patients with candidemia. The outcome of patients in whom the empirical echinocandin was deescalated to fluconazole was also assessed. Design: Retrospective, observational multicenter study. Setting: Medical and surgical ICUs in nine Spanish hospitals. Patients: Adult patients ( 18 yr) with an episode of Candida bloodstream infection during ICU admission from January 2011 to April 2016. Interventions: Patient characteristics, infection-related variables, therapeutic interventions, and metastatic complications were reviewed. A propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis was performed to identify the risk factors significantly associated with 30-day and 90-day mortality. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 294 patients were diagnosed of candidemia in the participant ICUs. Sixty patients were excluded (other antifungals in the primary therapy or the patient died without empirical antifungal therapy). The study group comprised 115 patients who received fluconazole (30-day mortality, 37.4%) and 119 patients treated empirically with an echinocandin (30-day mortality, 31.9%). The use of an echinocandin in the empirical therapy was a protective factor for 30-day (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66; p = 0.002) and 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27-0.93; p = 0.014) in the propensity score- adjusted multivariable analysis. Deescalation of the empirical echinocandin to fluconazole was not associated with a higher mortality or the occurrence of long-term complications. Conclusions: Empirical use of an echinocandin in critically ill patients with documented candidemia reduces mortality at 30 and 90 days significantly. Deescalation of the empirical echinocandin to fluconazole is safe and effective in fluconazole-susceptible infections.