Yen-Yuan Chen

Long-Term Risk of Coronary Events after AKI

The incidence rate of AKI in hospitalized patients is increasing. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the association of AKI with long-term risk of adverse coronary events. Our study investigated hospitalized patients who recovered from de novo dialysis-requiring AKI between 1999 and 2008 using patient data collected from inpatient claims from Taiwan National Health Insurance. We used Cox regression with time-varying covariates to adjust for subsequent CKD and ESRD after discharge. Results were further validated by analysis of a prospectively constructed database. Among 17,106 acute dialysis patients who were discharged, 4869 patients recovered from dialysis-requiring AKI (AKI recovery group) and were matched with 4869 patients without AKI (non-AKI group). The incidence rates of coronary events were 19.8 and 10.3 per 1000 person-years in the AKI recovery and non-AKI groups, respectively. AKI recovery associated with higher risk of coronary events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.36 to 2.04) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.57 to 1.79) independent of the effects of subsequent progression to CKD and ESRD. The risk levels of de novo coronary events after hospital discharge were similar in patients with diabetes alone and patients with AKI alone (P=0.23). Our results reveal that AKI with recovery associated with higher long-term risks of coronary events and death in this cohort, suggesting that AKI may identify patients with high risk of future coronary events. Enhanced postdischarge follow-up of renal function of patients who have recovered from temporary dialysis may be warranted.

To evaluate the effectiveness of health care ethics consultation based on the goals of health care ethics consultation: a prospective cohort study with randomization

BackgroundThe growing prevalence of health care ethics consultation (HCEC) services in the U.S. has been accompanied by an increase in calls for accountability and quality assurance, and for the debates surrounding why and how HCEC is evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of HCEC as indicated by several novel outcome measurements in East Asian medical encounters.MethodsPatients with medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues, and requests made by the attending physicians or nurses for HCEC from December 1, 2009 to April 30, 2012 were randomly assigned to the usual care group (UC group) and the intervention group (HCEC group). The patients in the HCEC group received HCEC conducted by an individual ethics consultant. Data analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. Mann–Whitney test and Chi-squared test were used depending on the scale of measurement.ResultsThirty-three patients (53.23%) were randomly assigned to the HCEC group and 29 patients were randomly assigned to the UC group. Among the 33 patients in the HCEC group, two (6.06%) of them ultimately did not receive a HCEC service. Among the 29 patients in the UC group, four (13.79%) of them received a HCEC service. The survival rate at hospital discharge did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the HCEC group showed significant reductions in the entire ICU stay and entire hospital stay. HCEC significantly facilitated achieving the goal of medical care (p < .01). Furthermore, patients in the HCEC group had a shorter ICU stay and shorter hospital stay after the occurrence of medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues than those in the UC group.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrated that HCEC were associated with reduced consumption of medical resources as indicated by shorter entire ICU stay, entire hospital stay, and shorter ICU and hospital stay after the occurrence of the medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues. This study also showed that HCEC facilitated achieving a consensus regarding the goal of medical care, which conforms to the goal of HCEC.

Effect of decisions to withhold life support on prolonged survival.

BACKGROUND The effect on long-term mortality of decisions made to withhold life-supporting therapies (LST) for critically ill patients is unclear. We hypothesized that mortality 60 days after ICU admission is not influenced by a decision to withhold use of LST in the context of otherwise providing all indicated care. METHODS We studied 2,211 consecutive, initial admissions to the adult, medical ICU of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. To achieve balanced groups for comparing outcomes, we created a multivariable regression model for the probability (propensity score [PS]) of having an order initiated in the ICU to withhold LST. Each of the 201 patients with such an order was matched to the patient without such an order having the closest PS; mortality rates were compared between the matched pairs. Cox survival analysis was performed to extend the main analysis. RESULTS The matched pairs were well balanced with respect to all of the potentially confounding variables. Sixty days after ICU admission, 50.5% of patients who had an order initiated in the ICU to withhold life support had died, compared to 25.8% of those lacking such orders (risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.6). Survival analysis indicated that the difference in mortality between the two groups continued to increase for approximately 1 year. CONCLUSION Contrary to our hypothesis, decisions made in the ICU to withhold LST were associated with increased mortality rate to at least 60 days after ICU admission.

“Allow natural death” is not equivalent to “do not resuscitate”: a response

Venneman and colleagues argue that “do not resuscitate” (DNR) is problematic and should be replaced by “allow natural death” (AND). Their argument is flawed. First, while end-of-life discussions should be as positive as possible, they cannot and should not sidestep painful but necessary confrontations with morality. Second, while DNR can indeed be nonspecific and confusing, AND merely replaces one problematic term with another. Finally, the study’s results are not generalisable to the populations of physicians and working nurses and certainly do not support the authors’ claim that there is a movement to replace DNR with AND.

Evaluating ethics consultation: randomised controlled trial is not the right tool

Background: Although ethics consultation has been introduced to clinical practice for many years, the results of empirical studies to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation are still controversial. The design of randomised controlled trials is considered the best research design to evaluate the effect of a clinical practice on the outcomes of interests. In order to understand the effects of ethics consultation, we conducted this search for studies with the design of randomised controlled trials to evaluate ethics consultation. Objective: To provide an integrated review of studies with the design of randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation. Methods: PubMed was used to search for studies using the randomised controlled trial design to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation. The search term used was “ethics consultation”. The selection criterion was limited to “randomised controlled trial”. Results: Four articles that met both search criteria were retrieved. One of these articles reported a study that did not actually use the design of a randomised controlled trial and is excluded from the following discussion. Conclusions: To apply randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation is extremely difficult as long as two issues are not resolved: the standardisation of ethics consultation and a placebo for ethics consultation to eliminate the placebo effect. Thus, the results generated by the design of randomised controlled trials are always problematic. Furthermore, as long as the two issues exist, the results generated by the design of quantitative research methods always pose problems.

The ongoing westernization of East Asian biomedical ethics in Taiwan

Family autonomy/family-determination (FA/FD) is deeply rooted in Confucianism, and is an important core value in East Asian biomedical ethics. Individual autonomy/self-determination (IA/SD) did not originate in East Asia, and is the most important core value of Western biomedical ethics. IA/SD and FA/FD are different from each other not only because of where they originated but also in their general sense and moral foundations. We investigated the influence of Western biomedical ethics on the Eastern hemisphere. We examined the secular trends of IA/SD use in ethics and biomedical ethics articles published in Taiwan from 1991 to 2010. The published articles were collected from a popular online library called the Chinese Electronic Periodical Services. A total of 1737 articles were associated with ethics, and 300 of them were associated with biomedical ethics. The total number of times IA/SD was used in each ethics and biomedical ethics article was calculated. The secular trends were plotted graphically and analyzed by time series linear regression analysis. The results showed that the secular trend of the proportion of the yearly total of biomedical ethics articles to the yearly total of ethics articles was significantly increasing (p = 0.007). The secular trends of the average of times IA/SD showed that one unit of yearly increase was associated with an increment of 0.056 IA/SD use per ethics article (p < 0.001), and 0.331 IA/SD use per biomedical ethics article (p = 0.027), respectively. These findings suggest that Western biomedical ethics have become increasingly influential in Taiwan over the past two decades. Thus, assuming that FA/FD takes priority over IA/SD in an East Asian medical encounter is too simplistic. Whether FA/FD or IA/SD takes priority in a medical encounter should be carefully evaluated.

Developing and Evaluating Medical Humanities Problem-Based Learning Classes Facilitated by the Teaching Assistants Majored in the Liberal Arts: A Longitudinal Crossover Study.

AbstractAlthough medical humanities courses taught by teachers from nonmedical backgrounds are not unusual now, few studies have compared the outcome of medical humanities courses facilitated by physicians to that by teaching assistants majored in the liberal arts. The objectives of this study were to (1) analyze the satisfaction of medical students with medical humanities problem-based learning (PBL) classes facilitated by nonmedical teaching assistants (TAF) majored in the liberal arts, and those facilitated by the attending physicians (APF) and (2) examine the satisfaction of medical students with clinical medicine-related and clinical medicine-unrelated medical humanities PBL classes.A total of 123 medical students, randomly assigned to 16 groups, participated in this study. There were 16 classes in the course: 8 of them were TAF classes; and the others were APF classes. Each week, each group rotated from 1 subject of the 16 subjects of PBL to another subject. All of the 16 groups went through all the 16 subjects in the 2013 spring semester. We examined the medical students’ satisfaction with each class, based on a rating score collected after each class was completed, using a scale from 0 (the lowest satisfaction) to 100 (the highest satisfaction). We also conducted multivariate linear regression analysis to examine the association between the independent variables and the students’ satisfaction.Medical students were more satisfied with the TAF (91.35 ± 7.75) medical humanities PBL classes than APF (90.40 ± 8.42) medical humanities PBL classes (P = 0.01). Moreover, medical students were more satisfied with the clinical medicine-unrelated topics (92.00 ± 7.10) than the clinical medicine-related topics (90.36 ± 7.99) in the medical humanities PBL course (P = 0.01).This medical humanities PBL course, including nonmedical subjects and topics, and nonmedical teaching assistants from the liberal arts as class facilitators, was satisfactory. This pedagogical approach of student-centered, nonmedical topics, nonmedical facilitators, and small groups, which is associated with a deep approach to learning medical humanities, should be highly encouraged.

Factors associated with two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders in a medical ICU*.

Objective:The State of Ohio in the United States has the legislation for two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical/demographic factors and outcomes associated with the two different do-not-resuscitate orders. Design:Data were concurrently and retrospectively collected from August 2002 to December 2005. The clinical/demographic factors of do-not-resuscitate patients were compared with those of non–do-not-resuscitate patients, and the clinical/demographic factors of do-not-resuscitate comfort care–arrest patients were compared with those of do-not-resuscitate comfort care patients. Setting:An ICU in a university-affiliated hospital located at Northeast Ohio in the United States. Patients:A sample of 2,440 patients was collected: 389 patients were do-not-resuscitate; and 2,051 patients were non–do-not-resuscitate. Among the 389 do-not-resuscitate patients, 194 were do-not-resuscitate comfort care–arrest patients and 91 were do-not-resuscitate comfort care patients. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:The factors associated with do-not-resuscitate were older age, race and ethnicity with white race, more severe clinical illness at admission to the ICU, and longer stay before admission to the ICU. Comparing do-not-resuscitate comfort care–arrest patients with do-not-resuscitate comfort care patients, those with more severe clinical illness, longer ICU stay before making a do-not-resuscitate decision, and being cared for by only one intensivist during ICU stay were significantly associated with do-not-resuscitate comfort care decisions. For 149 do-not-resuscitate patients who eventually survived to hospital discharge and 86 do-not-resuscitate patients who eventually did not, only eight (5.4%) and 23 (26.7%) had the order written within 48 hours before the end of ICU stay, respectively. Conclusions:Our study showed that some clinical/demographic factors predicted do-not-resuscitate comfort care orders. This study also suggested that Ohio’s Do-Not-Resuscitate Law, clearly indicating two different protocols of do-not-resuscitate orders, facilitated early do-not-resuscitate decision.

Two distinct Do-Not-Resuscitate protocols leaving less to the imagination: an observational study using propensity score matching

BackgroundDo-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) patients tend to receive less medical care after the order is written. To provide a clearer approach, the Ohio Department of Health adopted the Do-Not-Resuscitate law in 1998, indicating two distinct protocols of DNR orders that allow DNR patients to choose the medical care: DNR Comfort Care (DNRCC), implying DNRCC patients receive only comfort care after the order is written; and DNR Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-Arrest), implying that DNRCC-Arrest patients are eligible to receive aggressive interventions until cardiac or respiratory arrest. The aim of this study was to examine the medical care provided to patients with these two distinct protocols of DNR orders.MethodsData were collected from August 2002 to December 2005 at a medical intensive care unit in a university-affiliated teaching hospital. In total, 188 DNRCC-Arrest patients, 88 DNRCC patients, and 2,051 non-DNR patients were included. Propensity score matching using multivariate logistic regression was used to balance the confounding variables between the 188 DNRCC-Arrest and 2,051 non-DNR patients, and between the 88 DNRCC and 2,051 non-DNR patients. The daily cost of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the daily cost of hospital stay, the daily discretionary cost of ICU stay, six aggressive interventions, and three comfort care measures were used to indicate the medical care patients received. The association of each continuous variable and categorical variable with having a DNR order written was analyzed using Students t-test and the χ2 test, respectively. The six aggressive interventions and three comfort care measures performed before and after the order was initiated were compared using McNemars test.ResultsDNRCC patients received significantly fewer aggressive interventions and more comfort care after the order was initiated. By contrast, for DNRCC-Arrest patients, the six aggressive interventions provided were not significantly decreased, but the three comfort care measures were significantly increased after the order was initiated. In addition, the three medical costs were not significantly different between DNRCC and non-DNR patients, or between DNRCC-Arrest and non-DNR patients.ConclusionsWhen medical care provided to DNR patients is clearly indicated, healthcare professionals will provide the medical care determined by patient/surrogate decision-makers and healthcare professionals, rather than blindly decreasing medical care.

Further Deliberating Burying the Dead Donor Rule in Donation After Circulatory Death

do qualify for DCD, the wait results in fewer, lower quality organs. All you need do is change the proximate cause of my death—from the asphyxia you would cause by turning off my ventilator, or the dehydration you would cause by stopping my tube feedings, to the circulatory arrest you would cause by removing my heart. I will not suffer under any of these scenarios—you will prevent my suffering with appropriate anesthesia and analgesia. And by allowing me to donate in the way I ask, you permit me to help more people than I otherwise would.