Search

Background: Critically ill patients may die despite invasive intervention. In this study, we examine trends in the application of two such treatments over a decade, namely, endotracheal ventilation and vasopressors and inotropes administration, as well as the impact of these trends on survival durations in patients who die within a month of ICU admission., Methods: We considered observational data available from the MIMIC-III open-access ICU database and collected within a study period between year 2002 up to 2011. If a patient had multiple admissions to the ICU during the 30 days before death, only the first stay was analyzed, leading to a final set of 6,436 unique ICU admissions during the study period. We tested two hypotheses: (i) administration of invasive intervention during the ICU stay immediately preceding end-of-life would decrease over the study time period and (ii) time-to-death from ICU admission would also decrease, due to the decrease in invasive intervention administration. To investigate the latter hypothesis, we performed a subgroups analysis by considering patients with lowest and highest severity. To do so, we stratified the patients based on their SAPS I scores, and we considered patients within the first and the third tertiles of the score. We then assessed differences in trends within these groups between years 2002-05 vs. 2008-11., Results: Comparing the period 2002-2005 vs. 2008-2011, we found a reduction in endotracheal ventilation among patients who died within 30 days of ICU admission (120.8 vs. 68.5 hours for the lowest severity patients, p<0.001; 47.7 vs. 46.0 hours for the highest severity patients, p = 0.004). This is explained in part by an increase in the use of non-invasive ventilation. Comparing the period 2002-2005 vs. 2008-2011, we found a reduction in the use of vasopressors and inotropes among patients with the lowest severity who died within 30 days of ICU admission (41.8 vs. 36.2 hours, p<0.001) but not among those with the highest severity. Despite a reduction in the use of invasive interventions, we did not find a reduction in the time to death between 2002-2005 vs. 2008-2011 (7.8 days vs. 8.2 days for the lowest severity patients, p = 0.32; 2.1 days vs. 2.0 days for the highest severity patients, p = 0.74)., Conclusion: We found that the reduction in the use of invasive treatments over time in patients with very poor prognosis did not shorten the time-to-death. These findings may be useful for goals of care discussions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Beta cell replacement has the potential to restore euglycemia in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes. Although great progress has been made in establishing allogeneic islet transplantation from deceased donors as the standard of care for those with the most labile diabetes, it is also clear that the deceased donor organ supply cannot possibly treat all those who could benefit from restoration of a normal beta cell mass, especially if immunosuppression were not required. Against this background, the International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association in collaboration with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), and the Helmsley Foundation held a 2-day Key Opinion Leaders Meeting in Boston in 2016 to bring together experts in generating and transplanting beta cells derived from stem cells. The following summary highlights current technology, recent significant breakthroughs, unmet needs and roadblocks to stem cell-derived beta cell therapies, with the aim of spurring future preclinical collaborative investigations and progress toward the clinical application of stem cell-derived beta cells.