Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:23:15.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the in-hospital survival benefits of intensive care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Amir Shmueli  and
Charles L. Sprung
Amir Shmueli
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University
Charles L. Sprung
Affiliation:
Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: For an efficient and fair allocation of medical resources, one must know which patients benefit more from medical care. The objective of this study is to assess the differential survival benefits of a general intensive care unit (ICU) by acute diagnoses and by Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores.

Methods: The sample included all patients triaged for admission to the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center ICU during a 7-month period (n = 381). The potential effect of ICU on in-hospital survival was estimated by a bivariate (admission–survival) probit model, using crowding in the unit as the identifying variable, controlling for observable patients characteristics: age, sex, acute diagnoses, and APACHE II score. Using the estimates, the differential predicted survival benefits of ICU were calculated for selected general acute diagnoses and for different APACHE II scores.

Results: Adjusting for age, sex, and general acute diagnoses, the average potential survival benefit of ICU is 17 percentage points (pts). The benefit of ICU for patients with central nervous system problems, with sepsis, or with respiratory failure are higher than average (23 pts). Adjusting for APACHE II scores as well increases the estimated average potential benefit to 21 pts. Over the range of APACHE II scores, the highest benefit (38 pts of potential benefit) is attained for patients with scores around 22.

Conclusions: Survival benefits differ across diagnoses and APACHE II scores. Facing limited resources, admission policies should distinguish between survival probabilities (and survival maximization) and survival benefits (and maximization of ICU benefits). Actual referral and admission policies to the present ICU do not maximize the potential survival benefits of ICU resources.

Keywords

Intensive careIn-hospital survivalBivariate probitAPACHE IIIsrael
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 66 - 72
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bone RC, McElwee NE, Eubanks DH et al. 1993 Analysis of indications for intensive care unit admission. Chest. 104: 1806– 1811.Google Scholar
Consensus conference organized by the ESICM and the SRLF. 1994; Predicting outcome in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 20: 390– 397.
Franklin C, Rackow EC, Mamdani B, et al. 1990; Triage considerations in medical intensive care. Arch Intern Med. 150: 1455– 1459.Google Scholar
Frisho-Lima P, Gurman G, Schapira A, et al. 1994; Rationing critical care–what happens to patients who are not admitted?. Theor Surg. 9: 208– 211.Google Scholar
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, et al. 1985; APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 13: 818– 829.Google Scholar
Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S. 1993; Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American Multicenter Study. JAMA. 270: 2957– 2963.Google Scholar
Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, et al. 1993; Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of ICU patients. JAMA. 270: 2478– 2486.Google Scholar
Metcalfe MA, Sloggert A, McPherson K. 1997; Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to ICUs. Lancet. 350: 7– 12.Google Scholar
Moses LE. 1995; Measuring effects without randomized trials? Options, problems, challenges. Med Care. 33: AS8– AS14.Google Scholar
Sax FL, Charles ME. 1987; Utilization of critical care: A prospective study of physician triage and patient outcome. Arch Intern Med. 147: 929– 934.Google Scholar
Shmueli A, Kaplan E, Sprung CL. 2003; Optimizing admissions to intensive care. Health Care Manag Sci. 6: 131– 136.Google Scholar
Singer DE, Carr PL, Mulley AG, et al. 1983; Rationing intensive care: Physician responses to a resource shortage. N Engl J Med. 309: 1155– 1160.Google Scholar
Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. 1994; Consensus Statement on the Triage of Critically Ill Patients. JAMA. 271: 1200– 1203.
Sprung CL, Geber D, Eidelman LA, et al. 1999; Evaluation of triage decisions for intensive care admission. Crit Care Med. 27: 1073– 1079.Google Scholar
Strauss MJ, LoGerfo JP, Yelatzie JA, et al. 1986; Rationing of intensive care services; An everyday occurrence. JAMA. 255: 1143– 1146.Google Scholar
The Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. 1994; Attitudes of critical care medicine professionals concerning distribution of intensive care resources. Crit Care Med. 22: 358– 362.