Decisions to Withdraw Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: Patient Characteristics and Ethical Considerations

Erin S. DeMartino, Nicholas A. Braus, Daniel P. Sulmasy, J. Kyle Bohman, John M. Stulak, Pramod K. Guru, Kayla R. Fuechtmann, Nausheen Singh, Gregory J. Schears, Paul Mueller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. Results: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. Conclusion: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalMayo Clinic proceedings
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Resuscitation Orders
Ethical Analysis
Transplants
Withholding Treatment
Therapeutics
Ethics
Uncertainty
Medical Records

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Decisions to Withdraw Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support : Patient Characteristics and Ethical Considerations. / DeMartino, Erin S.; Braus, Nicholas A.; Sulmasy, Daniel P.; Bohman, J. Kyle; Stulak, John M.; Guru, Pramod K.; Fuechtmann, Kayla R.; Singh, Nausheen; Schears, Gregory J.; Mueller, Paul.

In: Mayo Clinic proceedings, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

DeMartino, Erin S. ; Braus, Nicholas A. ; Sulmasy, Daniel P. ; Bohman, J. Kyle ; Stulak, John M. ; Guru, Pramod K. ; Fuechtmann, Kayla R. ; Singh, Nausheen ; Schears, Gregory J. ; Mueller, Paul. / Decisions to Withdraw Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support : Patient Characteristics and Ethical Considerations. In: Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2019.
@article{db69b5cdfe0241d8a5358bf79286b7f3,
title = "Decisions to Withdraw Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: Patient Characteristics and Ethical Considerations",
abstract = "Objective: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. Results: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26{\%}) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13{\%}), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5{\%}), and bridge to decision for 51 (82{\%}). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29{\%}) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. Conclusion: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.",
author = "DeMartino, {Erin S.} and Braus, {Nicholas A.} and Sulmasy, {Daniel P.} and Bohman, {J. Kyle} and Stulak, {John M.} and Guru, {Pramod K.} and Fuechtmann, {Kayla R.} and Nausheen Singh and Schears, {Gregory J.} and Paul Mueller",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.020",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decisions to Withdraw Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support

T2 - Patient Characteristics and Ethical Considerations

AU - DeMartino, Erin S.

AU - Braus, Nicholas A.

AU - Sulmasy, Daniel P.

AU - Bohman, J. Kyle

AU - Stulak, John M.

AU - Guru, Pramod K.

AU - Fuechtmann, Kayla R.

AU - Singh, Nausheen

AU - Schears, Gregory J.

AU - Mueller, Paul

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. Results: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. Conclusion: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.

AB - Objective: To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation. Results: Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death. Conclusion: For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062462719&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062462719&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.020

DO - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 30853261

AN - SCOPUS:85062462719

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

ER -