Identificador persistente para citar o vincular este elemento: https://accedacris.ulpgc.es/jspui/handle/10553/133302
Campo DC Valoridioma
dc.contributor.authorBecerra Bolaños, Ángelen_US
dc.contributor.authorRamos-Ahumada, Daniela F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHerrera-Rodríguez, Lorenaen_US
dc.contributor.authorValencia-Sola, Lucíaen_US
dc.contributor.authorOjeda-Betancor, Nazarioen_US
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Pérez, Aurelio Eduardoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-30T13:43:57Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-30T13:43:57Z-
dc.date.issued2024en_US
dc.identifier.issn1648-9144en_US
dc.identifier.otherScopus-
dc.identifier.urihttps://accedacris.ulpgc.es/handle/10553/133302-
dc.description.abstractBackground/Objectives: The change in critically ill patients makes limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) a widespread practice when therapeutic goals cannot be achieved. We aimed to describe the application of LTE in a post-surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU), analyze the measures used, the characteristics of the patients, and their evolution. Methods: Retrospective observational study, including all patients to whom LTE was applied in a postsurgical ICU between January 2021 and December 2022. The LTE defined were brain death, withdrawal of measures, and withholding. Withholding limitations included orders for no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no orotracheal intubation, no reintubation, no tracheostomy, no renal replacement therapies, and no vasoactive support. Patient and ICU admission data were related to the applied LTE. Results: Of the 2056 admitted, LTE protocols were applied to 106 patients. The prevalence of LTE in the ICU was 5.1%. Data were analyzed in 80 patients. A total of 91.2% of patients had been admitted in an emergency situation, and 56.2% had been admitted after surgery. The most widespread limitation was treatment withholding (83.8%) compared to withdrawal (13.8%). No differences were found regarding who made the decision and the type of limitation employed. However, patients with the limitation of no intubation had a longer stay (p = 0.025). Additionally, the order of not starting or increasing vasopressor support resulted in a longer hospital stay (p = 0.007) and a significantly longer stay until death (p = 0.044). Conclusions: LTE is a frequent measure in critically ill patient management and is less common in the postoperative setting. The most widespread measure was withholding, with the do-not-resuscitate order being the most common. The decision was made mainly by the medical team and the family, respecting the wishes of the patients. A joint patient-centered approach should be made in these decisions to avoid futile treatment and ensure end-of-life comfort.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)en_US
dc.sourceMedicina [ISSN 1648-9144], v. 60 (9), p. 1461 (Septiembre 2024)en_US
dc.subject32 Ciencias médicasen_US
dc.subject710202 Códigos de conducta éticaen_US
dc.subject.otherIntensive care uniten_US
dc.subject.otherLife-sustaining therapiesen_US
dc.subject.otherFutilityen_US
dc.subject.otherWithholdingen_US
dc.subject.otherWithdrawalen_US
dc.subject.otherEnd-of-lifeen_US
dc.titleWithdrawal/Withholding of Life-Sustaining Therapies: Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in the Intensive Care Uniten_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/medicina60091461en_US
dc.identifier.scopus85205050753-
dc.identifier.isi001323522300001-
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-2817-3144-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-2608-8664-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-0947-263X-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57195983654-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid59345275700-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid59344836100-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57217086686-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6603373333-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7006262225-
dc.identifier.eissn1648-9144-
dc.identifier.issue9-
dc.relation.volume60en_US
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.contributor.daisngidNo ID-
dc.description.numberofpages11en_US
dc.utils.revisionen_US
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Becerra-Bolaños, A-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Ramos-Ahumada, DF-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Herrera-Rodríguez, L-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Valencia-Sola, L-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Ojeda-Betancor, N-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Rodríguez-Pérez, A-
dc.date.coverdateSeptiembre 2024en_US
dc.identifier.ulpgcen_US
dc.contributor.buulpgcBU-MEDen_US
dc.description.sjr0,593-
dc.description.jcr2,4-
dc.description.sjrqQ2-
dc.description.jcrqQ1-
dc.description.scieSCIE-
dc.description.miaricds11,0-
item.fulltextCon texto completo-
item.grantfulltextopen-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Ciencias Médicas y Quirúrgicas-
crisitem.author.deptGIR IUSA-ONEHEALTH 5: Reproducción Animal, Oncología y Anestesiología Comparadas-
crisitem.author.deptIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Ciencias Médicas y Quirúrgicas-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-2817-3144-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-0947-263X-
crisitem.author.parentorgIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.fullNameBecerra Bolaños, Ángel-
crisitem.author.fullNameRodríguez Pérez, Aurelio Eduardo-
Colección:Artículos
Adobe PDF (775,09 kB)
Vista resumida

Visitas

265
actualizado el 09-ene-2026

Descargas

61
actualizado el 09-ene-2026

Google ScholarTM

Verifica

Altmetric


Comparte



Exporta metadatos



Los elementos en ULPGC accedaCRIS están protegidos por derechos de autor con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.