At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, mounting demand overwhelmed critical care surge capacities, triggering implementation of triage protocols to determine ventilator allocation. Relying on triage scores to ration care, while relieving clinicians from making morally distressing decisions under high situational pressure, distracts clinicians from what is essentially deeply humanistic issues entrenched in this protracted public health crisis. Such an approach will become increasingly untenable as countries flatten their epidemic curves. Decisions regarding ICU admission are particularly challenging in older people, who are most likely to require critical care, but for whom benefits are most uncertain. Before applying score-based triage, physicians must first discern if older people will benefit from critical care (beneficence) and second, if he wants critical care (autonomy). When deliberating beneficence, physicians should steer away from solely using age-stratified survival probabilities from epidemiological data. Instead, decisions must be based on individualised risk-stratification that encompasses evidence-based predictors of adverse outcomes specific to older adults. Survival will also need to be weighed against burden of treatment, as well as longer-term functional deficits and quality-of-life. By identifying the robust older people who may benefit from critical care, clinicians should proceed to elicit his values and preferences that would determine the treatment most aligned with his best interest. During these dialogues, physicians must truthfully convey the emergent clinical reality, discern the older person’s therapeutic goals and discuss the feasibility of achieving them. Given that COVID-19 is here to stay, these conversations aimed at achieving goal-cordant care must become a new clinical norm.
2MWD ≤80 m identifies subjects with higher mortality, greater functional dependence, poorer in nutrition, greater dyspnea, and lower QoL. Incorporation of 2MWD into composite prognostic indices can enhance predictive accuracy and identify patients requiring early proactive palliative interventions.
Background: Understanding health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) provides insight into disease burden and treatment effects on patients' well-being. We examined HRQL in a multiracial Asian ILD cohort using the King's brief ILD (K-BILD) and EuroQol 5-dimension-3-level (EQ5D-3L) questionnaires and their associations with several clinical variables.Methods: This was a single-centre cross-sectional study of ILD patients in a university-affiliated tertiary public hospital in Singapore. All patients completed two self-administered HRQL questionnaires upon study entry, and their clinical information was retrieved from electronic medical records.Results: Ninety-nine patients (56% male, 75% Chinese) were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 63 (54-72) years. The most common ILD diagnosis was connective tissue disease-related ILD (n=51, 52%), followed by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n=27, 27%). The mean (standard deviation) scores for the EQ5D-3L utility value, EQ5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and K-BILD total were 0.806 (0.284), 75.1 (12.8) and 63.9 (14.3), respectively. A moderate correlation was found between the EQ5D-3L and K-BILD total and domain scores. The HRQL scores also correlate moderately with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) scores. There was a weak-to-moderate correlation between HRQL and FVC, DLCO and Charlson comorbidity index. Multiple linear regression showed a significant association of K-BILD total (beta coefficient 0.244, 95% CI: 0.075-0.414; P=0.005), K-BILD 'breathlessness and activities' (beta coefficient 0.448, 95% CI: 0.192-0.703; P=0.001), and the 'psychological' domain (beta coefficient 0.256, 95% CI: 0.024-0.488; P=0.031) with DLCO %pred after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, race, smoking history, comorbidities, FVC %pred and ILD diagnosis. Non-Chinese race was a predictor of better K-BILD
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.