|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From the Departments of Anesthesiology and Internal Medicine (Dr. Engoren) and Research Oversight and Education (Ms. Fenn-Buderer), St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center, Toledo, OH; and School of Nursing (Dr. Arslanian-Engoren), University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI.
Correspondence to: Milo Engoren, MD, FCCP, Department of Anesthesiology, St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center, 2213 Cherry St, Toledo, OH 43608; e-mail: engoren{at}pol.net
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Design: Retrospective chart review combined with prospective evaluation of functional status.
Setting: An urban, tertiary-care medical center.
Patients: Adult patients with tracheostomy for respiratory failure between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2000.
Methods: Retrospective chart review and prospective administration of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) for health status outcome.
Results: Four hundred twenty-nine patients were studied. Hospital mortality was 19%. Only 57% of survivors were liberated from mechanical ventilation. At 100 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after discharge, 24%, 30%, 36%, and 42% of hospital survivors had died, respectively. Patients liberated from mechanical ventilation and having their tracheostomy tubes decannulated had the lowest mortality (8% at 1 year); the mortality of ventilator-dependent patients was highest (57%). Sixty-six patients completed the SF-36 for functional status. While emotional health was generally good, physical function was quite limited. Median hospital direct variable cost was $29,340.
Conclusion: Overall survival and functional status are poor in patients with tracheostomy for respiratory failure. Patients who are liberated from mechanical ventilation and have their tracheostomy tubes removed have the best survival; however, it comes at a higher hospital cost and longer length of stay.
Key Words: cost mechanical ventilation mortality respiratory failure survival tracheostomy
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Studies that evaluated survival in ICU patients admitted with respiratory failure have found a high hospital mortality rate, approximately 40%.7 8 However, DRG 483 patients are a subset of these patients who may have a better hospital outcome. By physician and family choice, they may exclude the sickest patients: those who die within several days of respiratory failure, and those with multisystem organ dysfunction who are not expected to survive. Yet, little is known about this group of patients. The few studies4 9 10 11 evaluating outcome have been limited by small patient populations, specialized populations, limited follow-up, and no cost information. The purposes of this study were as follows: (1) to describe patient characteristics, hospital course, posthospital discharge survival, functional outcome, and hospital cost in a group of DRG 483 patients; and (2) to determine those patient characteristics that are associated with survival and functional outcome.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Four hundred twenty-nine patients were included in the study. Another 80 patients who had undergone tracheostomies were excluded: charts were unavailable (n = 8); tracheostomy was performed as part of a planned surgical procedure (n = 12), for emergency airway control (n = 8), in pediatric patients < 18 years old (n = 23), for secretion management (n = 15), or for upper airway obstruction in an intubated patient (n = 11); or if the patient already had a tracheostomy on admission to the hospital (n = 3). Charts were reviewed for age; sex; marital status (married, single, widowed, divorced); race (white, black, other); insurance status (none, private commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, Medicaid pending on admission, health maintenance organization/preferred provider organization); height; weight; hospital admitting service (internal medicine, family practice, surgery); admission diagnosis; presence of closed head injury on admission; medical history of hypertension, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, COPD, diabetes mellitus, and cancer; admission and nadir (lowest) hemoglobin; admission and peak creatinine; acute renal failure (peak creatinine > 2 mg/dL if normal on admission, else increased by
1 mg/dL if elevated on admission)9
; transfusion; dialysis (none, acute, chronic); insertion of an inferior vena cava filter; insertion of a surgical feeding tube (open gastrostomy, open jejunostomy, both open gastrostomy and jejunostomy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or none); type of operation (craniotomy, major vascular [operations on the abdominal aorta or carotid, iliac, or femoral arteries]; thoracic; abdominal; major orthopedic [operations on the pelvis, femur, or tibia, or hip or knee replacement]; other [all remaining operations]); dates of admission, tracheostomy, last day of mechanical ventilation, and discharge; discharge location (home, extended-care facility, rehabilitation hospital, another acute care hospital, hospice facility, or death); respiratory status on discharge (partial mechanical ventilation [on tracheostomy collar for at least 6 h/d], mechanical ventilation dependent [receiving at least 18 h/d], liberated from mechanical ventilation but tracheostomy tube still present, liberated from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy tube decannulated); the ability to walk in the hall; and nutrition (total parental nutrition, tube feedings, neither). Death after discharge was determined from hospital records, telephone calls, and Social Security Death Index. Survivors were contacted by telephone, and if they consented to participate, were administered the Short Form-36 (SF-36).12
Direct variable cost for each patients care was obtained from the internal accounting system of the hospital.
Data were collected at an urban, tertiary-care, university-affiliated, level I trauma and referral medical center. Fifty of the licensed 588 beds are adult critical care beds. The adult ICUs are open units, but ventilator privileges are restricted to anesthesiologists, pulmonologists, and trauma surgeons with critical care certification.
Statistics
Univariate associations between categorical patient characteristics and binary outcomes were analyzed with either
2 statistics or Fisher exact tests depending on applicability (SAS Institute; Cary, NC). Data are presented as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous patient characteristics were analyzed univariately with either the unpaired Student t test or the nonparametric Mann-Whitney rank-sum test depending on normality. Two-tailed p values < 0.01 were used to indicate statistical significance.
Multivariate associations between patient characteristics and binary outcomes were examined by logistic regression; odds ratios and 95% CI are presented for significant effects in the multivariate models.13
Cox proportional hazards methodology was used to model the probability of survival as a function of time, looking for differences in survival associated with various patient characteristics. Risk ratios (also referred to as hazards ratios) and 95% CI are presented for significant effects in the multivariate models.14
Multivariate modeling was done using forward selection and confirmed by backwards selection. No variable was forced to remain in the models; p values
0.05 were used to enter and keep variables in the models.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall survival was poor: 24% of hospital survivors were dead by 100 days, 30% by 6 months, 36% by 1 year, and 42% by 2 years after discharge. However, Kaplan-Meier survival varied dramatically by ventilator and tracheostomy tube status on discharge. Only 40 ± 5% (± SE) of ventilator-dependent patients were alive 1 year after discharge, compared to 86 ± 5% of decannulated patients (p < 0.001; Fig 1 ). Being discharged ventilator dependent or even with a tracheostomy tubeif liberated from mechanical ventilationwas associated with a twofold to fourfold higher chance of death. Coronary artery disease and higher admission creatinine also increased the risk of death, while closed head injury and being married lowered the risk of dying (Table 5 ).
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of the 334 hospital survivors, only 191 patients (57%) were completely liberated from mechanical ventilation. Survivors were younger and more rehabilitated on discharge. Whether patients were more rehabilitated because they had longer hospital stays or whether they had longer hospital stays because their physicians saw continued progress in walking, eating, and being liberated cannot be determined from this study and is an area for future research.
Of the 191 liberated patients, only 57 patients (30%) had their tracheostomy tubes decannulated before discharge. Again, the better outcome was associated with longer stays, higher costs, and a higher functional recovery on discharge; that is, they could walk and eat. Patients discharged without tracheostomy tubes also had the best 1-year survival (92%).
We found that functional statusthe ability to eat and walkwas an important association with better outcome. This is similar to other studies9 22 23 that found that the inability to walk predicts 30-day mortality in pneumonia and heart failure patients and 6-month mortality in survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation.
Posthospital survival was predominantly related to ventilator status (Table 5) . Admission creatinine, coronary artery disease, closed head injury, and marital status were also significantly associated with death. Patients who were completely ventilator dependent on hospital discharge had a fourfold increased risk of death. Being partially ventilator dependent or being liberated from mechanical ventilation but still retaining the tracheostomy tube placed patients at a lesser but still elevated risk of death. We found that an elevated admission creatinine is predictive of late mortality. While a similar effect has been found in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions and in postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease, a large population-based study found that while renal insufficiency on hospital admission was associated with an increased mortality after discharge, it could be attributed to the factors that cause renal dysfunction, such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension.24 25 26 However, our result was independent of the presence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension.
Coronary artery disease is a well-known risk factor for death.27 This increased risk occurred despite the fact that 28% of hospital survivors with coronary artery disease had surgical (25%) or angioplastic (4%) revascularization (70% of nonrevascularized patients compared to 45% of revascularized patients were dead at follow-up).
We found that closed head injury patients had a better posthospital survival. This is similar to our other finding that these patients were less likely to die in hospital. We speculate that their good outcome is related to these patients mostly being younger and healthier before hospital admission. Being married was also beneficial to survival. A previous study28 has found similar benefits in married patients after hospitalization for respiratory failure from COPD.
Our 30% 6-month mortality was similar to the 33% found by Seneff et al29 in chronically ventilated patients being considered for transfer to a specialized weaning center. Similar 6-month mortality rates of 25% and 22% were found in patients receiving at least 5 days or at least 7 days, respectively, of mechanical ventilation.9 30 After this initial high 6-month mortality, mortality curves tended to flatten out (Fig 1) .
At follow-up, we found that most responders had good emotional health but remained with major physical limitations. This is similar to Chatila et al,31 who evaluated 25 survivors of a ventilator rehabilitation unit. They found mild-to-moderate impairment in quality of life as measured by the sickness impact profile in most patients. Subjects with chronic diseases did worse.
There are several limitations to this study. The study was conducted at only one hospital and may not be representative of other patient populations. In particular, we had a high proportion of trauma and head injury patients, reflecting level I trauma status. Although timing of tracheostomy and choice of patients receiving tracheostomy may differ from center to center and physician to physician, we chose to study tracheostomy patients rather than a defined number of days of mechanical ventilation because the performance of a tracheostomy is a natural decision point for patients and their families to decide on the amount of care to continue to provide. In the United States, tracheostomy also moves the patient into a particular DRG with an increased reimbursement. However, this limits its comparison with other studies that used a defined number of days, such as 4, 7, or 10, to define respiratory failure. Another limitation is the low level of patient participation (39%) in completing the SF-36. This may have limited the ability to detect clinically important differences between groups. Many patients died before the study was conducted. They tended to be sicker and more likely to require ventilator or airway support at hospital discharge. If studied before they died, they may have had even lower scores on the SF-36. However, among survivors, there were only minor differences in demographics, comorbidities, and hospital course between participants, those who refused, and those unable to be contacted.
In summary, we found that overall survival and functional status are poor in patients with tracheostomy for respiratory failure. Patients who are liberated from mechanical ventilation and have their tracheostomy tubes removed have a much better survival; however, it comes at a higher hospital cost and longer length of stay.
| Footnotes |
|---|
This study was presented in part at the 32nd Critical Care Conference, January 28 to February 3, 2003, San Antonio, TX.
Funding was supplied solely by institutional and departmental resources.
Received for publication February 11, 2003. Accepted for publication June 24, 2003.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. Dieperink, J. F. Goorhuis, W. de Weerd, A. Hazenberg, J. G. Zijlstra, and M. W. N. Nijsten Walking with continuous positive airway pressure. Eur. Respir. J., April 1, 2006; 27(4): 853 - 855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J E Heffner Management of the chronically ventilated patient with a tracheostomy Chronic Respiratory Disease, July 1, 2005; 2(3): 151 - 161. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Blot, C. Melot, and for the Commission d'Epidemiologie et de Recherche Indications, Timing, and Techniques of Tracheostomy in 152 French ICUs Chest, April 1, 2005; 127(4): 1347 - 1352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. C. Engoren and C. M. Arslanian-Engoren Outcome After Tracheostomy for Respiratory Failure in the Elderly J Intensive Care Med, March 1, 2005; 20(2): 104 - 110. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |