INITIALLY DESIGNED TO RESCUE PAtients

Transcription

1 CARING FOR THE CRITICALLY ILL PATIENT Factors Associated With Use of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Seriously Ill Hospitalized Adults Sarah J. Goodlin, MD Zhenshao Zhong, PhD Joanne Lynn, MD, MS, MA Joan M. Teno, MD, MS Julie P. Fago, MD Norman Desbiens, MD Alfred F. Connors, Jr, MD Neil S. Wenger, MD Russell S. Phillips, MD Context The epidemiology of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders for hospitalized patients has been reported, but little is known about factors associated with the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Objective To identify factors associated with an attempt at CPR for patients who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest. Design Secondary analysis of data collected in 2 prospective cohort studies: the Study tounderstandprognosesandpreferencesforoutcomesandrisksoftreatments(support, ) and the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP, 1994). Setting Five teaching hospitals across the United States. Participants A total of 2505 seriously ill hospitalized patients and nonelectively admitted persons aged 80 years or older who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest. Main Outcome Measures Medical records data on CPR efforts, DNR orders, disease severity, age, race, sex, length of stay, and survival; functional status and preferences concerning CPR obtained by interviews with patients or surrogates; and 2-month survival estimates provided by physicians. Results Five hundred fourteen study subjects (21%) received CPR during their index hospitalization. Among them, 327 (63.6%) had CPR within 2 days of death and 93 (18.1%) had resuscitation and survived their index hospitalization. Use of CPR was more likely in men (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], ), younger patients (OR per 10-year increase, 0.90; 95% CI, ), African Americans (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, ), patients whose reported preferences were for CPR (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, ), who reported better quality of life (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, ), or who had higher physician estimates for 2-month survival (OR per 10% increase, 1.14; 95% CI, ). Rates varied significantly with geographic location and diagnosis; the adjusted OR for patients with congestive heart failure was 3.31 (95% CI, ) compared with patients with acute respiratory failure or multiple organ system failure. Conclusions Our data suggest that a resuscitation attempt is more likely when preferred by patients and when death is least expected. Further study is required to understand variation in use of CPR among sites and for patients with different diagnoses, race, sex, or age. JAMA. 1999;282: INITIALLY DESIGNED TO RESCUE PAtients experiencing a sudden cardiac arrest due to arrhythmia, 1 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has come to be seen as a procedure that should be used for patients for whom there is reasonable chance of restoring cardiopulmonary function and prolonging life. 2 Many guidelines, articles, and legal actions recommend circumstances under which resuscitation should be attempted. The likelihood of survival after CPR has been shown to vary with age and disease. 3 Decisions against attempting CPR may be a component of care plans that limit aggressiveness of care. 4 Yet decisions about CPR may reflect generally held expectations about particular diseases and perceptions of the appropriateness of specific treatments, rather than actual prognoses. 5 Do-notresuscitate (DNR) orders are more common in patients with more functional compromise and with increased age and vary by diagnosis, sex, race, and location. 6 In the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT), a study of seriously ill hospitalized patients, earlier DNR orders were associated with patient preferences to forego resuscitation, worse overall prognosis, and age older than 75 years. 7 In in- Author Affiliations are listed at the end of this article. Corresponding Author and Reprints: Sarah J. Goodlin, MD, Division of Geriatrics, LDS Hospital, Eighth Avenue and C Street, Salt Lake City, UT ( LDSGOODL@ihc.com). Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Section Editor: Deborah J. Cook, MD, Consulting Editor, JAMA. Advisory Board: David Bihari, MD; Christian Brun- Buisson, MD; Timothy Evans, MD; John Heffner, MD; Norman Paradis, MD American Medical Association. All rights reserved. JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No

2 tensive care units, DNR order rates have increased and rates of initiation of CPR have declined in the past decade Surprisingly, patient preferences about lifeextending treatment as reflected in living wills have not been shown to alter DNR decision making. 11,12 SUPPORT and the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP) were designed to describe and improve decision making and outcomes of care for seriously ill or elderly hospitalized adults. 13 In SUPPORT, all patients were hospitalized with 1 of 9 illnesses, severe enough to have a high risk of dying in the ensuing 6 months. In HELP, all patients were 80 years of age or older and were enrolled at the time of emergency hospital admissions. Many patients received life-prolonging interventions, and sometimes these interventions conflicted with patients or surrogates preferences for end-oflife care. 14 In both SUPPORT and HELP, among patients who died or experienced successful CPR during their enrollment hospitalization, we examined the features of the patient, the physician, and the hospitalization to understand what factors were associated with resuscitation attempts among patients who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest. We expected that the likelihood of having CPR at the end of life would reflect patients prognoses and preferences. We aimed to measure the strength of those associations and to assess the potential impact of other clinical and demographic factors. METHODS Study Population The data collection methods used in SUPPORT have been reported previously. 13 From June 1989 to June 1991 (phase I) and from January 1992 to January 1994 (phase II), SUPPORT enrolled patients 18 years of age or older who met specific severity criteria for 1 of 9 serious illnesses (nontraumatic coma, acute respiratory failure, multiple organ system failure with sepsis and multiple organ system failure with malignancy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure [CHF], cirrhosis, metastatic colon cancer, or inoperable non small cell lung cancer) who were admitted to 1 of 5 medical centers: Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, Mass; MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; St Joseph s Hospital, Marshfield, Wis; and the University of California Medical Center at Los Angeles. Some patients were eligible for the study at the time of admission; others became eligible as their condition worsened while in an intensive care unit. Patients were excluded if they died or were discharged within 48 hours of study enrollment; were admitted with a planned discharge within 72 hours; did not speak English; or had the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), multiple trauma, or pregnancy. SUP- PORT entry criteria and enrollment have been reported in detail elsewhere. 15 In these analyses, we grouped patients with acute respiratory failure and patients with multiple organ system failure and sepsis together because our previous work had found them to be overlapping categories with similar prognoses and treatments. 16 HELP enrolled patients 80 years of age and older, with any diagnosis except elective surgery, AIDS, or multiple trauma, who had an unplanned hospitalization for 48 hours or more at 1 of 4 teaching hospitals (Beth Israel Hospital, MetroHealth Medical Center, St Joseph s Hospital, and the University of California Medical Center at Los Angeles) between February and November Patients were assessed for eligibility for HELP at the time of hospital admission. Institutional review committees at all participating hospitals approved the study. Informed consent was obtained prior to interviews. Data Collection The data collection methods used in HELP were identical to those in SUP- PORT for the purposes of this analysis. The following descriptive variables were recorded from medical records: diagnoses including comorbid conditions, 17 vital signs, common laboratory values, and a clinical assessment of neurological status using the Glasgow Coma Scale. We obtained the date of any attempt at CPR (documentation in the medical record of a call for the CPR team and their having initiated CPR) and the date of death from the record. Disease severity was assessed using the Acute Physiology, Age, Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III Acute Physiology Score (APS). 13,18 Patients and their surrogate decisionmakers were interviewed in the first week of entry into SUPPORT or HELP. Interview data included demographic factors, perceived quality of life (using a 5-point scale), and functional status 2 weeks prior to admission using a modified Katz activity of daily living (ADL) scale ranging from 1 to 7 points. 19 Patient interview data were available for 233 subjects; for 1486 subjects, the surrogate s response was calibrated to patients responses and substituted as described previously. 20 When both patient and surrogate responses were unavailable, we imputed ADL (for 814 patients) and quality of life values (for 868 patients) using a logistic regression model adjusting for patients interview status, diagnosis, age, coma score, APS, comorbidities, dementia, and sites. 20 When we restricted our analysis to patients without imputed data, our results were unchanged; therefore, we present models including imputed data as our primary analysis. Preferences about resuscitation were assessed with the following question: As you probably know, there are a number of things doctors can do to try to revive someone whose heart has stopped beating, which usually includes a machine to help breathing. Thinking of your current condition, what would you want your doctor to do if your heart ever stops beating?: (1) would want doctors to try to revive; (2) would want doctors not to try to revive; (3) would want CPR but no ventilator; and (4) don t know (the last 2 responses were recorded if the patient or surrogate volunteered them). For our 2334 JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

3 analyses, responses 1 and 3 were included as showing a preference for CPR. Patients who responded don t know were also considered as if they had stated a preference for CPR, as would be done in clinical practice. Surrogate response for patients preferences about CPR were used for 1479 patients in this analysis who could not be interviewed; 601 patients died before their interview and 1584 patients were intubated, in coma, or otherwise unable to communicate. All surrogate interviews reported here were conducted prior to the patient s death. No data about preferences were available for 820 subjects (32.7%), either because a surrogate could not be identified or the patient or their surrogate declined to answer the question. In a separate interview within 5 days of enrollment, but prior to patient death, the most senior physician available on the treatment team was asked to state the probability (0-100) that the patient would live for 2 months or more. Physician interview data were available for 1972 patients. Statistical Analysis In this secondary analysis of SUP- PORT and HELP data, we identified all patients in the SUPPORT and HELP studies who died during their index admission and/or received CPR during their enrollment hospitalization. We considered CPR to have been provided if we found chart documentation of CPR on or after the third day after study admission. Since patients were excluded from SUPPORT if death occurred during the first 48 hours of study enrollment, we excluded all CPR attempts tried on the first 2 calendar days of study entry. Patients were characterized with descriptive statistics. To study the bivariable association between CPR attempts and patients characteristics, we used 2 tests to analyze discrete variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. We used logistic regression models to determine which factors were associated with a CPR attempt at the time of cardiopulmonary arrest. Independent variables included in the model were patient age, race, sex, disease group, preferences for CPR, APS on day 3, number of ADL dependencies, patient reported quality of life, physician s estimate of patients 2-month survival, and study site. We used the c statistic as a measure of the ability of the model to discriminate between those who did and those who did not receive a CPR attempt (0.5 = no discrimination, 1 = perfect discrimination). 21 A 2-sided of.05 was used as the criterion for significance. In a secondary analysis, we added to the model whether the patient had a DNR order prior to cardiopulmonary arrest to explore whether variation in DNR orders explained the variation in CPR we observed, but found that DNR orders were highly collinear with use of CPR, resulting in substantial increases in SEs and an unstable model. Separately, to assess whether secular trends confounded our results, we also adjusted for year of study entry and results were similar to our primary analyses. RESULTS SUPPORT and HELP enrolled subjects. Of these, 2505 subjects experienced cardiopulmonary arrest, and 514 (21%) received CPR on or after the third study day during their index hospitalization. Of the 514 patients who received CPR, 93 (18.1%) survived the index hospitalization, and 327 (63.6%) had CPR attempted within the last 2 days of life (293 on the calendar day of death and 34 on the day before death). TABLE 1 shows the age, sex, race, primary diagnosis, APS on the third study day, ADL score, and quality of life 2 weeks prior to study entry, and the number of comorbidities for patients with and without an attempt at resuscitation. Patient or surrogate preference to attempt CPR was associated with having CPR, yet 13% of patients (or surrogates) who received CPR preferred to forego CPR, and 38% of patients who wanted CPR or were unsure did not receive CPR at the end of life. Patients who had CPR were younger, more often African American, and more often male. We found substantial variation by site and diagnosis. Patients with fewer ADL dependencies and better APS were more likely to receive a CPR attempt. Of the 514 patients who received CPR on or after day 3 of the study entry, 15 (3%) had DNR orders written on or before the day prior to the CPR attempt, and 50 had DNR orders written on the day of the attempt, while 449 had no DNR orders written. Of the 93 patients who survived CPR, 1 had a DNR order written the day of the CPR attempt, 8 had DNR orders written subsequently, and 1 had a DNR order prior to the CPR attempt. Of the 421 patients who had CPR but died during the index hospitalization, 293 died on the same day of the last CPR attempt, and 128 lived more than 1 day after the last CPR attempt. Among the 293 patients who died on the same day of the last CPR attempt, 29 had DNR orders written that day. Among the 128 who lived more than 1 day after the last CPR attempt, 93 had DNR orders written before death. Of the 1991 patients who died without CPR attempts, 1802 (91%) had DNR orders in place. Of the 189 patients who died without DNR orders or a CPR attempt, 75 had DNR decisions documented in the medical record without a specific DNR order. Among the 114 remaining patients who died without a CPR attempt prior to death or a DNR order or note, 42 had preferred CPR, 24 had preferred to forego CPR, 9 were unsure, and 39 had no data available. Of the 514 patients who had CPR, 74 (14%) had more than 1 CPR attempt during the hospitalization. Of the 421 patients who had CPR but died during the index hospitalization, 62 (15%) had more than 1 CPR attempt. Of the 93 patients who had CPR and survived the hospitalization, 12 (13%) had more than 1 CPR attempt. TABLE 2 shows the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the factors that were significant in the logistic regression model. The multivariable model shows that the adjusted likelihood of a resuscitative attempt decreased with increasing age American Medical Association. All rights reserved. JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No

4 Men were more likely to have an attempt at resuscitation than were women. African Americans were more likely to undergo a CPR attempt. Patients who expressed clear preference against CPR were less likely to undergo CPR than those who had no preference or who wanted CPR. Patients who reported better quality of life prior to hospitalization were more likely to receive CPR. Neither APS nor functional status were associated with the use of CPR. Patients with CHF were most likely to receive CPR. Patients in coma were least likely to have a resuscitative effort. Use of CPR varied substantially across sites. For patients at one site, the OR for having CPR was 2.53 compared with patients at another study institution. Physician prognostic estimates were strongly associated with receiving CPR; the OR for having CPR increased by 0.14 for each 10% increase in the likelihood of survival at Table 1. Characteristics of Patients Who Received Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) On or After Day 3 of Study Entry Compared With Patients Who Died Without a CPR Attempt (N = 2505)* Characteristics Patients Who Received CPR (n = 514) Patients Who Died Without CPR Attempt (n = 1991) P Value Median age, y (25th, 75th percentile) 65 (51, 74) 67 (55, 77).001 Male 314 (61) 1065 (54).002 Race African American 110 (21) 295 (15) White and other 404 (79) 1696 (85).001 Site 1 51 (10) 343 (17) (35) 683 (34) 3 42 (8) 181 (9) (21) 388 (20) (26) 396 (20) Quality of life rating Good, very good, or excellent 87 (17) 210 (11) Poor or fair 427 (83) 1781 (89).001 Preferences for care CPR or not sure 287 (56) 756 (38) No CPR 66 (13) 555 (28).001 No data 161 (31) 680 (34) Disease group ARF or MOSF + sepsis 321 (63) 920 (46) COPD 26 (5) 85 (4) Congestive heart failure 54 (11) 52 (3) Cirrhosis 17 (3) 101 (5) Coma 27 (5) 341 (17).001 Colon cancer or lung cancer 9 (2) 122 (6) MOSF + cancer 49 (10) 328 (17) HELP 11 (2) 42 (2) Median No. of comorbidities 2 (1, 3) 1 (1, 2).10 (25th, 75th percentile) Median activities of daily living dependencies 1.6 (0.5, 2.5) 1.8 (0.5, 2.5).04 (25th, 75th percentile) Median Acute Physiology Score 55 (39, 71) 58 (43, 76).002 on day 3 (25th, 75th percentile) Median physician estimate of 2-month survival, % (25th, 75th percentile) 50 (20, 75) 25 (10, 50).001 *Data are expressed as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated. Complete data were available for all variables listed except physician estimate of survival. For physician estimate of survival, data were not available for 533 patients. ARF indicates acute respiratory failure; MOSF, multiple organ system failure; and COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. HELP indicates the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project, subjects 80 years of age or older without any listed disease. 2 months. The c statistic for our multivariable model is COMMENT Resuscitation was attempted for 514 (21%) of the 2505 patients who experienced cardiac arrest during their index hospitalization and 93 (18%) of 514 patients who had CPR survived their index hospitalization. Most patients who died more than 1 day following a CPR attempt had a DNR order written prior to death. We found that the likelihood of attempting resuscitation at the time of cardiac or pulmonary arrest varies substantially with prognosis and preferences, quality of life, diagnosis, site of hospitalization, and patient age, sex, and race. Most medical ethicists suggest that decisions about resuscitation should be guided by patient preferences and by the likelihood of success of the resuscitative effort or the patient s prognosis for survival. In our study, the physician estimate of 2-month survival and patient preference have an important effect on use of CPR, but are similar in magnitude to other variables. Although less than 60% of patients who had DNR orders died during their initial hospitalization in SUPPORT, 7 similar factors were associated with the timing of DNR orders among all patients in SUPPORT and the use of CPR among patients experiencing cardiopulmonary arrest. Previous work in SUPPORT identified a strong association between patient preferences and DNR orders, 7 and in our study, patients with a DNR order generally did not receive an attempt at resuscitation at the end of life. Although there was a strong correlation between preferences, DNR orders, and use of CPR, 9% of patients who died without CPR did not have a DNR order in place. Of the 114 patients who died without a CPR attempt, DNR order or note, 42 patients or their surrogates had expressed a preference for CPR. Patients for whom we had no data about preferences had a rate of CPR attempt similar to those who preferred CPR. Many of these subjects lacked a ready surrogate who might have made 2336 JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

5 health care decisions to limit interventions. Of patients or surrogates who wanted CPR or were unsure, only 28% received CPR, while 11% of patients who did not want CPR received an attempt at CPR. This lack of congruency between preferences and treatment may reflect changes in preferences or prognoses in the time between interviews and cardiopulmonary arrest or misunderstood communication between patients and physicians. Physician decisions about CPR may be heavily influenced by factors such as their own values and preferences. 22,23 Some clinical situations may appear to offer so little hope of effectiveness of CPR that physicians may not offer an attempt at CPR to patients or surrogates. In other work, patient preferences were not associated with the use of life-sustaining treatment. 24 Our data show higher rates of CPR attempts for patients for whom physicians felt there was reasonable likelihood of surviving 2 months. In a recent study of intensive care unit patients, severity of illness (APACHE III score) was the most important variable associated with a DNR order. 25 Conversely, when death is not expected imminently, physicians may be reluctant to forego resuscitation. However, even in end-stage disease, physicians may have difficulty recognizing that death is imminent. 26,27 It may seem that decisions to forego an attempt at CPR should not vary with the type of disease after adjustment for physician estimate of prognosis. However, characteristics associated with disease type may explain different patterns of attempted resuscitation. For example, reasonably well-defined prognostic markers are available for patients with incurable, metastatic cancer or with coma, and when poor prognosis is clear, many physicians and patients avoid CPR. In fact, some question the merits of making CPR available to terminally ill cancer patients. 28,29 However, for patients with other diseases, the prognosis may be more uncertain. Patients with end-stage CHF follow a less predictable course, 26,30 and this diagnosis may be a more important influence on the decision to attempt CPR than the survival prognosis itself. Furthermore, despite a poor long-term prognosis, patients with advanced CHF may be quickly resuscitated from an event caused by a cardiac arrhythmia. Physicians may also have different thresholds of perceived chance of survival of patients for recommending CPR for patients with CHF or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared with those with cancer. 31 The ambiguity in prognosis for CHF and the ability of patients with CHF to respond well to treatment even late in the course may explain the increased use of CPR for patients with CHF compared with patients with other diseases included in our study. The patients who received resuscitation attempts did not significantly differ in severity of illness (as measured by APS) on the third study day or in functional status 2 weeks earlier, in the adjusted analysis, when compared with Table 2. Multivariable Model of Factors Associated With Independently Receiving a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Attempt in the Event of Cardiopulmonary Arrest On or After Day 3 of Study Entry* Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) Factor for Receiving CPR Age per 10-year increase 0.90 ( ) Sex Male 1.39 ( ) Female 1.00 Race African American 1.76 ( ) White and other 1.00 Disease group ARF or MOSF + sepsis 1.00 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1.02 ( ) Congestive heart failure 3.31 ( ) Cirrhosis 0.36 ( ) Coma 0.26 ( ) Colon cancer or lung cancer 0.23 ( ) MOSF + cancer 0.41 ( ) HELP 0.85 ( ) Preferences CPR or not sure 2.60 ( ) No CPR 1.00 No data 2.35 ( ) Site ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Activities of daily living dependencies reported on day 3, 1.00 ( ) by each 1-point increase Acute Physiology Score on day 3, by each 10-point increase 1.01 ( ) Physician estimate of 2-month survival By each 10% increase 1.14 ( ) No data available 1.52 ( ) Patient quality of life reported on day 3 Good, very good, or excellent 1.49 ( ) Fair or poor 1.00 *The adjusted odds ratios were obtained from a logistic regression model with the attempt of CPR as the dependent variable. The model is based on data available from 2504 patients. The model had a c statistic of CI indicates confidence interval. ARF indicates acute respiratory failure; MOSF, multiple organ system failure. HELP indicates the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project, subjects 80 years of age or older without any listed disease American Medical Association. All rights reserved. JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No

6 those who did not have a resuscitation attempt. This contrasts with other reports in which more functionally dependent patients received less aggressive care than others. However, our measure for functional status may be inaccurate, in part, because it was imputed (rather than reported directly by patient or surrogate) for one third of our subjects. Alternatively, for the seriously ill patients included in SUP- PORT, there may have been less variation in functional status compared with those described in other studies. Additionally, the strong correlation between prognostic estimate and measures of disease severity may have dampened any possible effect of functional status and APS on use of CPR in our multivariable model. In contrast to our findings on functional status, we found that patients were more likely to receive CPR if they reported better quality of life prior to hospitalization. Several studies suggest that hospitalized older persons who are seriously ill have similar rates of short- and long-term success of resuscitation attempts compared with younger patients. 32,33 Long-term survival and functional status were worse after successful CPR for individuals older than 70 years in another study. 34 In our study, older patients were less likely to receive CPR, even after adjustment for patient preferences and severity of illness. This observation is consistent with other observations that suggest that less aggressive care is provided to older patients. 35 Less aggressive care for older persons may reflect patient and physician values. 36,37 Other analyses of SUP- PORT data found that older seriously ill patients preferred CPR less often than did younger patients. 38 While differing preferences are not sufficient to explain the effect we document, older persons or their families may be more readily persuaded to avoid CPR as their clinical situation worsens. African American patients had higher rates of attempts at CPR than non African Americans, even after adjustments for their greater preference for CPR. Differing priorities in end-of-life care have previously been observed between various cultural and racial groups, 39,40 but it is unclear what effects these differences have on decisions to attempt CPR at the end of life. Variation in rates of attempted resuscitation by site suggests that decisions to attempt resuscitation are influenced by the culture of local medical practices. The influence of the institution on the likelihood of attempting CPR was more powerful than patients preferences, which is difficult to justify. Profound geographic variation in care for the dying has been demonstrated in other work. 41,42 Understanding how decisions about attempting resuscitation are made in different settings and what influences guide these decisions may help to identify ways to improve care for the seriously ill. This study has several limitations. First, our analysis focuses on factors associated with use of CPR but because we restricted our analysis to the index hospitalization, our data cannot be used to estimate the longer-term survival of patients following CPR. Additionally, in our analysis, we do not account for variation in success of CPR in different patient populations or in different institutions, nor do we present data on factors associated with successful CPR. However, the likelihood of successful CPR is generally low in hospitalized patients, especially in those similar to patients in SUPPORT. 3,32,33 Both SUPPORT and HELP were based in academic referral hospitals and may have attracted patients more likely to desire aggressive care. Limiting our description to those who had successful CPR or died during their initial hospitalization excludes information on outcomes experienced shortly after hospital discharge or in other settings. Since patients who died or were discharged within the first 48 hours of enrollment were excluded, our results do not generalize to patients entire hospital stay. Since we did not collect data on the exact time DNR orders were written, we are unable to tell which occurred first when a CPR attempt and DNR order occurred the same day. However, it is likely that DNR orders were generally written after CPR attempts when they occurred on the same day. Our reliance on surrogate responses and imputed interview data in both SUPPORT and HELP may introduce bias. Surrogates may not accurately understand or predict patients preferences. 43 Yet in many clinical settings, surrogates function in a role of decision maker. Functional status data derived by imputing the number of functional deficits from a logistic regression model may reduce our ability to find differences in functional status among patient groups. Finally, our analysis uses data from SUPPORT and HELP collected from 1989 to Practice patterns regarding CPR and end-of-life care for seriously ill patients may have changed since these data were collected. We found that a CPR attempt was associated with patient or surrogate preferences for CPR and the physician s estimate of better survival at 2 months. However, the size of these effects is modest and comparable to the effect of other factors. The variation in use of CPR across different diagnoses may be explained by variability in the clinical course of disease and prognostic uncertainty. Patients race, sex, age, and site of hospitalization, however, had significant effects that are more difficult to explain. Future work to improve CPR decision making should include perceptions of CPR effectiveness and seek to understand cultural forces in medical and lay communities that cause the variations we observed. Additionally, systems to ensure that patients preferences are addressed and that DNR orders are written and followed need further attention and improvement. Author Affiliations: Division of Geriatrics, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah (Dr Goodlin); Center to Improve Care of the Dying, George Washington University, Washington, DC (Drs Zhong and Lynn); Center for Gerontology and Health Care Research, Brown University, Providence, RI (Dr Teno); Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH (Dr Fago); University of Tennessee, College of Medicine, Chattanooga Unit, Chattanooga (Dr Desbiens); Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville (Dr Connors); Department of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles (Dr Wenger); and Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass (Dr Phillips). Dr Goodlin is a 2338 JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

7 Faculty Scholar, Open Society Institute, Project on Death in America, New York, NY. Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ. The opinions and findings in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or their Board of Trustees. Acknowledgment: We thank Beverly MacMillen for invaluable assistance with preparation of the manuscript. REFERENCES 1. National Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care. Standards and guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care: medico-legal considerations and recommendations. JAMA. 1974;227: Emergency Cardiac Care Committee and Subcommittees, American Heart Association. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care, VIII: ethical considerations in resuscitation. JAMA. 1992;268: Bedell SE, Delbanco TL, Cook FE, et al. Survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. N Engl J Med. 1983;309: Tomlinson T, Body H. Futility and the ethics of resuscitation. JAMA. 1990;264: Wachter RM, Luce JM, Hearst N, Lo B. Decisions about resuscitation: inequities among patients with different diseases but similar prognoses. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111: Wenger NS, Pearson ML, Desmond KA, et al. Epidemiology of do-not-resuscitate orders: disparity by age, diagnosis, gender, race, and functional impairment. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155: Hakim RB, Teno JM, Harrell FE, et al. Factors associated with do-not-resuscitate orders: patients preferences, prognoses, and physicians judgments. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125: Jayes RL, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, et al. Donot-resuscitate orders in intensive care units: current practices and recent changes. JAMA. 1993;270: Prendergast TJ, Luce JM. Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155: Koch KA, Rodeffer HD, Wears RL. Changing patterns of terminal care management in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Manage. 1994;22: Scheiderman LJ, Kronick R, Kaplan RM, et al. Effects of offering advance directives on medical treatments and costs. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117: Teno J, Lynn J, Wenger N, et al, for the SUP- PORT Investigators. Advance directives for seriously ill hospitalized patients: effectiveness with the patient self-determination act and the SUPPORT intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45: The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients: the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA. 1995;274: Lynn J, Teno JM, Phillips RS, et al, for the SUPPORT Investigators. Perceptions by family members of the dying experience of older and seriously ill patients. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126: Murphy DJ, Knaus WA, Lynn J. Study population in SUPPORT: patients (as defined by disease categories and mortality projections), surrogates, and physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:11S-28S. 16. Knaus WA, Harrell FE, Lynn J, et al. The SUP- PORT prognostic model: objective estimates of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122: Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13: Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system: risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991;100: Landefeld CS, Phillips RS, Bergner M. Patient characteristics in SUPPORT: functional status. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:37S-40S. 20. Wu AW, Damiano AM, Lynn L, et al. Predicting future functional status for seriously ill hospitalized adults: the SUPPORT model. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 122: Harrell FE, Califf RM, Pryor DB, et al. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA. 1982;247: Orentlicher D. The illusion of patient choice in endof-life decisions. JAMA. 1992;267: Krumholz HM, Phillips RS, Hamel MB, et al. Resuscitation preferences among patients with severe congestive heart failure: results from the SUPPORT Project. Circulation. 1998;98: Danis M, Mutran E, Garrett JM, et al. A prospective study of the impact of patient preferences on lifesustaining treatment and hospital cost. Crit Care Med. 1996;24: Jayes RL, Zimmernam JE, Wagner DP, et al. Variations in the use of do-not-resuscitate orders in ICUs: findings from a national study. Chest. 1996;110: Lynn J, Harrell F Jr, Cohn F, Wagner D, Connors AF Jr. Prognoses of seriously ill hospitalized patients on the days before death: implications for patient care and public policy. New Horizons. 1997;5: Christakis NA. Death Foretold: Prophecy and Prognosis in Medical Care. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; Curtis JR, Park DR, Krone MR, et al. Use of the medical futility rationale in do-not-attemptresuscitation orders. JAMA. 1995;273: Faber-Langendoen K. Resuscitation of patients with metastatic cancer: is transient benefit still futile? Arch Intern Med. 1991;151: Poses RM, Smith WR, McClish DK, et al. Physicians survival predictions for patients with acute congestive heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157: Hanson LC, Danis M, Garrett JM, Mutran E. Who decides? physicians willingness to use life-sustaining treatment. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156: Peterson MW, Geist LJ, Schwartz DA, et al. Outcome after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a medical intensive care unit. Chest. 1991;100: Berger R, Kelley M. Survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest of noncritically ill patients. Chest. 1994;106: DeVos R, de Haes HC, Koster RW, de Haan RJ. Quality of survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159: Hanson LC, Danis M. Use of life-sustaining care for the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39: Callahan D. Terminating treatment: age as a standard. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17: Asch DA, Hansen-Flaschen J, Lanken PM. Decisions to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment by critical care physicians in the United States: conflicts between physicians practices and patients wishes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;151: Phillips RS, Wenger NS, Teno J, et al. Choices of seriously ill patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation: correlates and outcomes. Am J Med. 1996; 100: Koenig BA, Gates-Williams J. Understanding cultural difference in caring for dying patients. West J Med. 1995;163: Oppenheim A, Sprung CL. Cross-cultural ethical decision-making in critical care. Crit Care Med. 1998; 26: Wennberg JE, Cooper MM, eds. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care Chicago, Ill: American Hospital Publishing Inc; Prendergast TJ, Claessens MT, Luce JM. A national survey of end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158: Seckler AB, Meier DE, Mulvihill M, et al. Substituted judgement: how accurate are proxy predictions? Ann Intern Med. 1991;115: American Medical Association. All rights reserved. JAMA, December 22/29, 1999 Vol 282, No