ライフサイエンスコーパス: do-not-resuscitate order

1 ,408 patients with septic shock; 19.6% had a do-not-resuscitate order.

2 te are often made in the absence of a formal do-not-resuscitate order.

3 nit admission and were less likely to have a do-not-resuscitate order.

4 e legislation for two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders.

5 nd correlated to the placement and timing of do-not-resuscitate orders.

6 d outcomes associated with the two different do-not-resuscitate orders.

7 physicians and patients who are considering do-not-resuscitate orders.

8 severity, medical cost, and the presence of do-not-resuscitate orders.

9 hospitals do not differ based on presence of do-not-resuscitate orders.

10 cy that mandates reconsideration of existing do-not-resuscitate orders.

11 ndings about the management of perioperative do-not-resuscitate orders.

12 tal stay, refusing to participate, or having do-not-resuscitate orders.

13 ths of stay, frequency, timing, and goals of do-not-resuscitate orders.

14 the only treatment less common in those with do-not-resuscitate orders.

15 s no significant difference in prevalence of do-not-resuscitate orders.

16 Secondary outcomes: (1) in-hospital do-not-resuscitate orders, (2) in-hospital palliative ca

17 mergency team calls were associated with 109 do-not-resuscitate orders (28%).

18 a treatment limitation discussion, 67% had a do-not-resuscitate order, 40% were admitted to a medical

19 UB physicians were more likely to write do not resuscitate orders (59% versus 33%, p < 0.01) and

20 s 35.2%, p = 0.03), were more likely to have do-not-resuscitate orders (65.9% vs 48.2%, p < 0.001), a

21 d arrests (91% vs 77%; p = 0.02), and fewer "do-not-resuscitate" orders (7% vs 78%; p < 0.001).

22 critical care unit, 66 were associated with do-not-resuscitate orders, 73% of which were obtained af

23 tes were associated with lower likelihood of do-not-resuscitate order (adjusted OR, 0.439; 95% CI, 0.

24 ch on critically ill patients when they have do-not-resuscitate orders, advance directives, or are in

25 probability of reintubation, with death and do-not-resuscitate orders after extubation modeled as co

26 less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have do-not-resuscitate orders after intracerebral hemorrhage

27 ive in more than half of the patients with a do-not-resuscitate order; almost one fourth of these pat

28 sunderstanding of the meaning and scope of a do-not-resuscitate order and 2) a need for discussions a

29 ved an initial hospitalization with an early-do-not-resuscitate order and were readmitted within 30 d

30 The comanagement of do-not-resuscitate orders and implanted defibrillators c

31 When associations between do-not-resuscitate orders and individual minor complicat

32 here was no association between pre-existing do-not-resuscitate orders and occurrence of any major co

33 eam implementation on the change in trend of do-not-resuscitate orders and the hospital mortality.

34 subgroup analysis between CHF patients with do-not-resuscitate orders and those without do-not-resus

35 Elderly patients were more likely to have do-not-resuscitate orders and to undergo withdrawal of l

36 More than half of the patients (52%) had a do-not-resuscitate order, and 65% of them still had the

37 derlying disease, whether or not there was a do-not-resuscitate order, and medical center.

38 ical procedures performed, the presence of a do-not-resuscitate order, and withdrawal of therapy.

39 ive care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality.

40 Social-worker involvement and a do-not-resuscitate order appeared to mitigate risk.

41 ies should state unambiguously that existing do-not-resuscitate orders are to be reevaluated, delinea

42 d on the presence of an advance directive or do-not-resuscitate order, as it would create a biased st

43 nsultation and hospice referral and having a Do Not Resuscitate order at the time of death, whereas a

44 Factors protecting against high WHD include do-not-resuscitate order at admission, presence of coma

45 less likely than non-Hispanic whites to use do-not-resuscitate orders at any time point, although th

46 the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% C

47 portions of women and admitted patients with do not resuscitate orders before first surgical procedur

48 majority of patients in both groups received do-not-resuscitate orders before death (84% and 72%, res

49 test for associations between ethnicity and do-not-resuscitate orders, both overall ("any do-not-res

50 wn substantial between-hospital variation in do-not-resuscitate orders, but stability of do-not-resus

51 edical literature, we propose that a partial do-not-resuscitate order contradicts this "best" managem

52 id not complete an advance care plan and his do-not-resuscitate order did not accompany him to the ho

53 Undergoing surgery with a pre-existing do-not-resuscitate order did not increase the risk of ha

54 2,687 [81.8%]) patients having pre-existing do-not-resuscitate orders (DNR group) with 6,002 non-do-

55 A total of 16.3% of patients had a do-not-resuscitate order during the index hospitalizatio

56 learly indicating two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders, facilitated early do-not-resu

57 Clinicians placed do not resuscitate orders for 41% of patients ( n = 604/

58 Do-not-resuscitate orders for ward referrals increased f

59 ospitalization; 12.2% of all patients with a do-not-resuscitate order had this placed on the same day

60 t had a smaller proportion of residents with do-not-resuscitate orders, had a higher prevalence of no

61 We propose that a partial do-not-resuscitate order highlights larger problems: 1)

62 Approximately one fourth of both groups had do-not-resuscitate orders (HMO, 25.4%; FFS, 27.9%; P=.68

63 -2.93; p = .003), and less likely to want a do-not-resuscitate order if hospitalized (51% vs. 60%; z

64 dition was present before NV-HAP in 54% and "Do Not Resuscitate" orders in 24%.

65 or withdrawing of life support had a formal do-not-resuscitate order in place at the time of their d

66 Women were more likely than men to have a do-not-resuscitate order in their records (adjusted rela

67 d the 28-day mortality effect of preexisting do-not-resuscitate orders in ICUs.

68 persistent trend toward less frequent use of do-not-resuscitate orders in Mexican-Americans suggests

69 likely as non-Hispanic whites to have early do-not-resuscitate orders in unadjusted analysis (odds r

70 lly appropriate application of perioperative do-not-resuscitate orders include differing values and m

71 of hospitalized patients with an in-hospital do-not-resuscitate order increased significantly from 14

72 rker involvement (0.004 [0.001-0.097]) and a do-not-resuscitate order issued before death (0.177 [0.0

73 CHF patients received do-not-resuscitate orders later than did cancer patients

74 ence for heroics, and advance care planning (do-not-resuscitate order, living will, and health care p

75 A partial do-not-resuscitate order may serve as an example.

76 onto a phase I trial (n = 7), adoption of a do not resuscitate order (n = 5), or initiation of termi

77 1 and day 18, including 4 patients who had a do-not-resuscitate order on admission.

78 07 ICU patients, 1,239 patients (6.5%) had a do-not-resuscitate order on the first day of ICU admissi

79 ensity of hospital resource use; presence of do-not-resuscitate orders on study day 1; and presence a

80 1.15-9.54; P =.03), earlier institution of a do-not-resuscitate order (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; P

81 mentation significantly changed the trend of do-not-resuscitate orders (p < 0.001) but had no impact

82 re pattern outcomes were short-stay hospital do-not-resuscitate orders, palliative care delivery, tra

83 lateral do-not-resuscitate (UDNR) order is a do-not-resuscitate order placed using clinician judgment

84 patients who received a tracheostomy, had a do-not-resuscitate order placed, or died prior to first

85 se system was associated with an increase in do-not-resuscitate order placement.

86 s and discharge data, death occurrences, and do-not-resuscitate order placements were collected over

87 complications were analyzed, a pre-existing do-not-resuscitate order remained independently associat

88 ments in these patients and the influence of do-not-resuscitate orders remains unknown.

89 Older age, a preexisting do-not-resuscitate order, renal impairment, disseminated

90 do-not-resuscitate orders and those without do-not-resuscitate orders revealed cardiopulmonary resus

91 4.17, 95% CI 2.28, 7.61), the presence of a do-not-resuscitate order (RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.21, 4.65), a

92 Partial do-not-resuscitate order(s) are designed based on the pa

93 mited literature available regarding partial do-not-resuscitate order(s) suggests the practice is cli

94 lines and recommendations on the use of full do-not-resuscitate order(s) with little mention of parti

95 tate order(s) with little mention of partial do-not-resuscitate order(s).

96 neate responsibilities for reconsidering the do-not-resuscitate order, state available options, defin

97 Compared with patients without a do-not-resuscitate order, those with a do-not-resuscitat

98 to permit the tailoring of the perioperative do-not-resuscitate order to the autonomous choice of the

99 Two of the 19 died after a do-not-resuscitate order was entered >24 hrs after admis

100 io, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.5; P < .0001), and do-not-resuscitate order was established earlier (mean d

101 ted with outcome only when the presence of a do-not-resuscitate order was excluded from the model.

102 Overall, the rate of do-not-resuscitate orders was 85%.

103 ntibodies, or chemotherapeutic agents), or a do-not-resuscitate order were excluded.

104 out a do-not-resuscitate order, those with a do-not-resuscitate order were significantly more likely

105 Do-not-resuscitate orders were also documented earlier (

106 udies indicated that hospice utilization and do-not-resuscitate orders were less common in CHF patien

107 This case series investigates whether do-not-resuscitate orders were reevaluated before surger

108 Do-not-resuscitate orders were reported for 91% of nursi

109 9.10-58.57; p < .001) and the presence of a do-not-resuscitate order while in the ICU (adjusted odds

110 Do-not-resuscitate orders within 12 hours of ROSC.

111 e care bundle was mediated by a reduction in do-not-resuscitate orders within 24 hours (52.8%) and in

112 th advance directives than those without had do-not-resuscitate orders within the first 72 hrs (19% v

113 he hospital, immunocompetent, and without a "do-not-resuscitate" order within 24 hrs of admission.

114 less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have do-not-resuscitate orders written at any time point (odd