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

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

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

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

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

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

12 ndings about the management of perioperative 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 mergency team calls were associated with 109 do-not-resuscitate orders (28%).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

47 2,687 [81.8%]) patients having pre-existing do-not-resuscitate orders (DNR group) with 6,002 non-do-

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

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

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

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

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

53 -2.93; p = .003), and less likely to want a do-not-resuscitate order if hospitalized (51% vs. 60%; z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 07 ICU patients, 1,239 patients (6.5%) had a do-not-resuscitate order on the first day of ICU admissi

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

66 1.15-9.54; P =.03), earlier institution of a do-not-resuscitate order (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

75 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90 9.10-58.57; p < .001) and the presence of a do-not-resuscitate order while in the ICU (adjusted odds

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

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

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

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