Friday, August 22, 2025

Myositis in Critical Care: Recognition, Management, and Outcomes

A Comprehensive Review for the Intensivist

Dr Neeraj Manikath , Claude.ai

Abstract

Myositis represents a heterogeneous group of inflammatory muscle diseases that can present with life-threatening complications requiring intensive care management. This review provides critical care physicians with a systematic approach to recognizing, diagnosing, and managing myositis in the ICU setting. We discuss the spectrum of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, their systemic manifestations, diagnostic challenges, and evidence-based treatment strategies. Special emphasis is placed on recognizing myositis-associated interstitial lung disease, cardiac involvement, and rhabdomyolysis as critical complications requiring immediate intervention.

Keywords: myositis, polymyositis, dermatomyositis, necrotizing myopathy, critical care, interstitial lung disease

Introduction

Myositis encompasses a diverse group of acquired inflammatory muscle disorders that can rapidly progress to multi-organ failure requiring intensive care support. The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) include polymyositis (PM), dermatomyositis (DM), immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), inclusion body myositis (IBM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASS). While these conditions are relatively rare, with an incidence of 5-10 cases per million population annually, their potential for rapid deterioration and high mortality when complicated by respiratory failure makes recognition and early intervention crucial for intensivists.

Recent advances in myositis-specific antibody (MSA) and myositis-associated antibody (MAA) testing have revolutionized our understanding of these conditions, allowing for more precise phenotyping and prognostication. This review synthesizes current evidence to provide practical guidance for critical care management of myositis patients.

Classification and Clinical Presentation

Dermatomyositis (DM)

Dermatomyositis is characterized by the pathognomonic skin manifestations including heliotrope rash, Gottron's papules, and the shawl sign. In critical care, patients may present with:

Severe muscle weakness progressing to respiratory failure
Rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (RP-ILD)
Cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure
Severe dysphagia with aspiration risk

Polymyositis (PM)

Pure polymyositis without skin involvement is increasingly recognized as a diagnosis of exclusion. Critical presentations include:

Proximal muscle weakness with elevated CK (often >10,000 IU/L)
Respiratory muscle involvement
Dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia

Immune-Mediated Necrotizing Myopathy (IMNM)

IMNM is associated with anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP antibodies and presents with:

Severe muscle weakness and markedly elevated CK (often >5,000-50,000 IU/L)
Potential for rapid progression
Poor response to corticosteroids alone

Antisynthetase Syndrome (ASS)

This multi-system disorder is defined by the presence of antisynthetase antibodies (most commonly anti-Jo1) and the clinical triad of:

Myositis
Interstitial lung disease (present in 70-90% of cases)
Arthritis

🔹 Pearl: The "mechanic's hands" (hyperkeratotic, cracked skin on palms and fingers) is a subtle but important sign of antisynthetase syndrome that may precede muscle symptoms.

Critical Complications Requiring ICU Management

Myositis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease (MA-ILD)

MA-ILD is the leading cause of death in myositis patients, occurring in up to 78% of patients with antisynthetase syndrome and 65% with dermatomyositis. Recognition patterns include:

Rapidly Progressive ILD (RP-ILD):

Onset within 3 months of symptom development
Associated with anti-MDA5, anti-Jo1, and anti-PL-7 antibodies
High mortality (up to 50% at 6 months) without aggressive treatment

Chronic ILD:

Gradual onset over months to years
Better prognosis with appropriate treatment
May still require mechanical ventilation during acute exacerbations

🔹 Hack: In any myositis patient, obtain baseline HRCT chest even if asymptomatic - subclinical ILD is present in up to 50% of cases and early detection allows for prophylactic treatment.

Cardiac Involvement

Cardiac manifestations occur in 15-75% of myositis patients and include:

Conduction abnormalities (most common)
Myocarditis with heart failure
Pericarditis
Coronary artery disease (increased risk)

🔹 Oyster: A normal ECG and echocardiogram do not exclude cardiac involvement. Cardiac MRI or PET scan may reveal subclinical myocarditis in up to 75% of patients.

Rhabdomyolysis and Acute Kidney Injury

Severe rhabdomyolysis (CK >50,000 IU/L) can occur, particularly in:

IMNM patients
Statin-induced necrotizing myopathy
Concurrent infections or other triggers

Management principles include aggressive fluid resuscitation, alkalinization of urine, and early renal replacement therapy if indicated.

Diagnostic Approach in the ICU

Laboratory Investigations

Essential Tests:

Complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel
Creatine kinase, aldolase, LDH, AST, ALT
Inflammatory markers (ESR, CRP)
Myositis-specific and associated antibodies
Complement levels (C3, C4)

🔹 Pearl: CK levels may be normal in up to 20% of dermatomyositis patients, particularly those with amyopathic dermatomyositis or anti-MDA5 positive rapidly progressive ILD.

Advanced Testing:

Myositis antibody panel including:
- MSAs: Anti-Jo1, Anti-PL-7, Anti-PL-12, Anti-EJ, Anti-OJ, Anti-KS, Anti-Mi-2, Anti-TIF1γ, Anti-MDA5, Anti-NXP2, Anti-SAE, Anti-HMGCR, Anti-SRP
- MAAs: Anti-Ro52, Anti-PM-Scl, Anti-Ku, Anti-U1RNP

Imaging

High-Resolution CT Chest:

Essential in all myositis patients
Patterns include NSIP, UIP, organizing pneumonia, and DAD
Serial monitoring for progression

MRI Muscle:

STIR sequences show muscle edema and inflammation
Useful for biopsy guidance and monitoring treatment response
T1-weighted images reveal fatty replacement in chronic disease

Cardiac Evaluation:

ECG and echocardiogram in all patients
Consider cardiac MRI if clinical suspicion
Holter monitoring for arrhythmia detection

Muscle Biopsy

While often not feasible in critically ill patients, muscle biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis when clinical and serological features are inconclusive.

🔹 Hack: If muscle biopsy is being considered, perform MRI first to identify the most appropriate biopsy site and avoid sampling error from end-stage fibrotic muscle.

Treatment Strategies

First-Line Immunosuppression

Corticosteroids:

Prednisolone 1-2 mg/kg/day (maximum 80-100mg daily)
IV methylprednisolone 1g daily x 3 days for severe presentations
Gradual taper over 12-24 months

🔹 Pearl: In anti-MDA5 positive rapidly progressive ILD, early aggressive combination therapy is crucial - don't wait to see steroid response before adding additional agents.

Steroid-Sparing Agents

Methotrexate:

First-line steroid-sparing agent
15-25mg weekly (oral or subcutaneous)
Monitor for hepatotoxicity and pneumonitis
Contraindicated in significant kidney or liver disease

Azathioprine:

Alternative first-line agent
2-3 mg/kg/day
Check TPMT activity before initiation
Monitor CBC and liver function

Second-Line and Rescue Therapies

Mycophenolate Mofetil:

Increasingly used first-line, especially for ILD
2-3 grams daily in divided doses
Better GI tolerability than azathioprine

Calcineurin Inhibitors:

Tacrolimus: particularly effective for anti-MDA5 positive patients
Cyclosporine: alternative option
Require therapeutic drug monitoring

Rituximab:

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody
Particularly effective in antisynthetase syndrome
Dosing: 375 mg/m² weekly x 4 or 1g x 2 doses 2 weeks apart

IVIG:

2 g/kg over 2-5 days monthly
Particularly useful in refractory cases or when other agents contraindicated
May provide rapid improvement in severe weakness

Novel Therapies

JAK Inhibitors:

Tofacitinib and baricitinib showing promise
Particularly for anti-MDA5 positive rapidly progressive ILD
Requires careful monitoring for infection risk

🔹 Hack: For anti-MDA5 positive RP-ILD, consider the "triple combination": high-dose steroids + calcineurin inhibitor + mycophenolate, with early addition of rituximab or JAK inhibitor if poor initial response.

ICU-Specific Management Considerations

Mechanical Ventilation

Indications:

Respiratory muscle weakness with impending failure
Severe ILD with hypoxemic respiratory failure
Aspiration pneumonia with compromised airway protection

Ventilatory Strategy:

Lung-protective ventilation (6-8 ml/kg ideal body weight)
PEEP optimization based on recruitability
Consider prone positioning for severe ARDS
Early tracheostomy for prolonged ventilation

🔹 Pearl: Respiratory muscle weakness may persist longer than limb weakness - don't rush extubation based on improving peripheral strength alone.

Infection Prophylaxis and Monitoring

Immunosuppressed myositis patients are at high risk for opportunistic infections:

PCP prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
Consider CMV monitoring and prophylaxis
Fungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients
Regular surveillance cultures

Nutritional Support

Early enteral nutrition when possible
Assess swallowing function before oral intake
Consider PEG tube for prolonged dysphagia
Protein requirements may be increased (1.5-2 g/kg/day)

Rehabilitation

Early mobilization when clinically stable
Physical and occupational therapy
Speech therapy for dysphagia
Gradual activity progression

Monitoring and Assessment of Treatment Response

Clinical Parameters

Manual muscle testing (MMT-8)
Functional assessments (HAQ, patient global assessments)
Respiratory function tests
Swallowing evaluation

Laboratory Monitoring

CK levels (may normalize before clinical improvement)
Inflammatory markers
Myositis antibody titers (some correlate with disease activity)
Drug toxicity monitoring

Imaging Follow-up

Serial HRCT chest for ILD monitoring
MRI muscle for treatment response assessment
Cardiac monitoring as indicated

🔹 Oyster: CK normalization doesn't always correlate with clinical improvement, and CK may remain elevated in IMNM patients despite treatment response. Use clinical assessment as the primary endpoint.

Prognostic Factors and Outcomes

Poor Prognostic Indicators

Rapidly progressive ILD
Anti-MDA5 positive with low/absent CK elevation
Older age at onset (>45 years)
Male gender in dermatomyositis
Cardiac involvement
Malignancy-associated myositis
Delayed treatment initiation

Mortality

Overall 5-year mortality: 20-30%
RP-ILD: up to 50% mortality at 6 months
ICU mortality varies by presentation but can exceed 40%

🔹 Pearl: Early aggressive treatment within the first 3 months of symptom onset significantly improves long-term outcomes, particularly for ILD.

Special Populations

Malignancy-Associated Myositis

Screen all adult dermatomyositis patients for malignancy
Peak risk within 2 years of myositis diagnosis
Age-appropriate screening plus CT chest/abdomen/pelvis
Consider PET scan in high-risk patients

Juvenile Dermatomyositis

Different clinical course with more frequent calcinosis
Higher frequency of severe GI involvement
Generally better prognosis than adult forms

Drug-Induced Myositis

Statins, immune checkpoint inhibitors, D-penicillamine
May require discontinuation of offending agent
Statin-associated IMNM may persist despite drug cessation

Future Directions and Emerging Therapies

Biomarkers

Interferon gene signatures for monitoring disease activity
Novel autoantibodies for phenotype prediction
Muscle-specific biomarkers beyond CK

Targeted Therapies

Type I interferon inhibitors (anifrolumab)
Complement inhibitors
Cell-specific targeting strategies

Precision Medicine

Antibody-guided treatment selection
Pharmacogenomic approaches to drug selection
Personalized monitoring strategies

Key Clinical Pearls and Hacks

Diagnostic Pearls

The "anti-MDA5 paradox": Patients with rapidly progressive ILD often have minimal muscle involvement and normal/low CK levels
Gottron's sign vs. Gottron's papules: The sign (flat erythema over joints) is more specific than papules (raised lesions)
Heliotrope rash mimics: Allergic reactions, angioedema, and dermatomyositis can look similar - check for Gottron's signs
The "shawl sign": V-neck and upper back/shoulder erythema is highly specific for dermatomyositis

Treatment Hacks

The "pulse and taper": Start with IV methylprednisolone pulse, then high-dose oral prednisolone with early steroid-sparing agent
The "triple threat" for RP-ILD: Steroids + mycophenolate + tacrolimus, with early rituximab consideration
The "CK disconnect": Don't rely solely on CK levels for treatment decisions - clinical assessment is paramount
The "infection balance": Aggressive immunosuppression saves lives in severe myositis, but infection surveillance is crucial

Monitoring Oysters

Subclinical ILD: Up to 50% of patients have asymptomatic ILD on HRCT
Cardiac involvement: Often subclinical but can be life-threatening
Cancer screening: All adult DM patients need comprehensive screening
Drug interactions: Many myositis medications have significant drug-drug interactions

Conclusion

Myositis in the critical care setting represents a complex challenge requiring rapid recognition, aggressive treatment, and multidisciplinary care. The key to successful outcomes lies in early identification of high-risk phenotypes, particularly those with rapidly progressive ILD or cardiac involvement, and prompt initiation of appropriate immunosuppressive therapy. Recent advances in antibody testing and targeted therapies offer hope for improved outcomes, but the fundamental principles of intensive care - organ support, infection prevention, and rehabilitation - remain crucial.

The intensivist managing myositis patients must balance aggressive immunosuppression against infection risk, while monitoring for multiple organ system involvement. With proper recognition and management, many patients can achieve significant improvement and return to functional independence.

References

Lundberg IE, Tjärnlund A, Bottai M, et al. 2017 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and their major subgroups. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(12):1955-1964.
Aggarwal R, Ringold S, Khanna D, et al. Distinctions between diagnostic and classification criteria? Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67(7):891-897.
Sato S, Hirakata M, Kuwana M, et al. Autoantibodies to a 140-kd polypeptide, CADM-140, in Japanese patients with clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(5):1571-1576.
Moghadam-Kia S, Oddis CV, Sato S, et al. Anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 is associated with rapidly progressive lung disease and poor survival in US patients with amyopathic and myopathic dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(5):689-694.
Marie I, Hatron PY, Dominique S, et al. Short-term and long-term outcomes of interstitial lung disease in polymyositis and dermatomyositis: a series of 107 patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(11):3439-3447.
Tymms KE, Webb J. Dermatopolymyositis and other connective tissue diseases: a review of 105 cases. J Rheumatol. 1985;12(6):1140-1148.
Rider LG, Katz JD, Jones OY. Developments in the classification and treatment of the juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2013;39(4):877-904.
Betteridge Z, Tansley S, Shaddick G, et al. Frequency, mutual exclusivity and clinical associations of myositis autoantibodies in a combined European cohort of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy patients. J Autoimmun. 2019;101:48-55.
Aggarwal R, Cassidy E, Fertig N, et al. Patients with non-Jo-1 anti-tRNA-synthetase autoantibodies have worse survival than Jo-1 positive patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(1):227-232.
Cavagna L, Trallori G, Felicetti M, et al. Myositis-specific and myositis-associated antibody positive idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: clinical phenotypes, prognosis, and response to therapy. Rheumatology. 2021;60(6):2574-2585.

Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Care Management of Suspected Interstitial Lung Disease with Special Emphasis on Connective Tissue Disease-Associated ILD

Critical Care Management of Suspected Interstitial Lung Disease with Special Emphasis on Connective Tissue Disease-Associated ILD: A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practitioners

Dr Neeraj Manikath , Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) represents a heterogeneous group of parenchymal lung disorders that frequently present to critical care units with acute respiratory failure. Connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD) comprises a significant subset requiring specialized management approaches.

Objective: To provide critical care practitioners with evidence-based strategies for diagnosis, management, and prognostication of suspected ILD patients, with particular emphasis on CTD-ILD recognition and treatment.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of current guidelines, recent clinical trials, and expert consensus statements on ILD management in critical care settings.

Conclusions: Early recognition of CTD-ILD patterns, appropriate immunosuppressive therapy, and careful ventilatory management significantly impact outcomes. A systematic approach combining clinical, radiological, and laboratory assessment is essential for optimal patient care.

Keywords: Interstitial lung disease, connective tissue disease, critical care, mechanical ventilation, immunosuppression

Introduction

Interstitial lung diseases encompass over 200 distinct entities characterized by inflammation and fibrosis of the lung interstitium¹. In critical care settings, patients with ILD commonly present with acute exacerbations, respiratory failure, or as incidental findings during evaluation for other conditions. Connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD) represents approximately 15-20% of all ILD cases and requires specialized management due to its systemic nature and potential responsiveness to immunosuppressive therapy²,³.

The critical care management of suspected ILD patients demands rapid diagnostic workup, careful ventilatory strategies, and early consideration of disease-modifying therapies. This review provides a systematic approach to these complex patients with practical insights for daily clinical practice.

Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment

🔍 PEARL: The "ILD Triad" in Critical Care

Always assess for the classic triad when ILD is suspected:

Progressive dyspnea (often insidious onset)
Bibasilar inspiratory crackles (fine, "velcro-like")
Digital clubbing (present in 25-50% of cases)

Acute Presentations

ILD patients may present to critical care with several distinct scenarios:

1. Acute Exacerbation of Known ILD

Acute worsening of dyspnea over days to weeks
New ground-glass opacities on CT
Exclusion of infection, heart failure, or pulmonary embolism⁴

2. Acute Respiratory Failure as Initial Presentation

Rapidly progressive dyspnea
Hypoxemic respiratory failure
Bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging

3. Post-procedural Complications

Drug-induced pneumonitis
Post-surgical acute lung injury in predisposed patients

💎 OYSTER: The "Silent Hypoxemia" Trap

ILD patients may maintain normal oxygen saturations at rest but develop profound desaturation with minimal exertion. Always perform a 6-minute walk test or assess oxygen saturation with activity when possible.

Diagnostic Approach in Critical Care

High-Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT)

HRCT remains the cornerstone of ILD diagnosis and should be performed urgently in suspected cases⁵.

Key HRCT Patterns Suggestive of CTD-ILD:

Nonspecific Interstitial Pneumonia (NSIP): Ground-glass opacities with peripheral sparing
Usual Interstitial Pneumonia (UIP): Honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, peripheral distribution
Organizing Pneumonia (OP): Peripheral consolidation, "reverse halo" sign
Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonia (LIP): Ground-glass with cystic changes

🔧 HACK: The "HRCT Timing Rule"

Obtain HRCT within 6 hours of presentation when possible. Early imaging prevents confusion with evolving ARDS patterns and guides immediate therapeutic decisions.

Laboratory Assessment

Essential Laboratory Panel for Suspected CTD-ILD:

Autoimmune Markers
- ANA (antinuclear antibodies)
- Anti-CCP (cyclic citrullinated peptide)
- Rheumatoid factor
- Anti-Scl-70, anti-centromere (systemic sclerosis)
- Anti-Ro/SSA, Anti-La/SSB (Sjögren's syndrome)
- Anti-Jo-1, anti-synthetase panel (myositis)
Inflammatory Markers
- ESR, CRP
- Ferritin (consider macrophage activation syndrome)
- Complement levels (C3, C4)
Pulmonary Function Surrogates
- Arterial blood gas
- BNP/NT-proBNP (assess for pulmonary hypertension)
- LDH (elevated in acute exacerbations)

💎 OYSTER: The "Antisynthetase Syndrome" Mimic

Antisynthetase syndrome can present with fever, myalgia, and bilateral infiltrates mimicking pneumonia. Look for Gottron's papules, mechanic's hands, and check anti-Jo-1 antibodies.

CTD-ILD: Specific Considerations

Major CTD-ILD Associations

1. Systemic Sclerosis (SSc)-ILD

Most common CTD-ILD (90% prevalence in diffuse SSc)
NSIP pattern predominant
Associated with anti-Scl-70 antibodies
Rapid progression possible⁶

2. Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)-ILD

UIP pattern common (similar to IPF)
Male predominance
Smoking history frequent
Anti-CCP positive in majority⁷

3. Myositis-ILD

Dermatomyositis > polymyositis
Rapidly progressive course possible
Anti-MDA5 antibodies associated with severe disease
May precede muscle symptoms⁸

4. Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD)-ILD

Anti-RNP antibodies
NSIP pattern typical
Generally better prognosis than other CTD-ILD

🔍 PEARL: The "CTD-ILD Phenotyping Rule"

In any patient <60 years with ILD, especially women, systematically screen for CTD even in the absence of obvious rheumatological symptoms. Up to 30% of patients with "idiopathic" ILD have underlying CTD.

Critical Care Management Strategies

Respiratory Support

1. Oxygen Therapy

Target SpO₂ 88-92% (avoid hyperoxia-induced lung injury)
High-flow nasal cannula preferred over conventional oxygen
Consider early intubation if work of breathing excessive

2. Mechanical Ventilation Strategies

🔧 HACK: The "ILD Ventilation Formula"

Tidal Volume: 4-6 mL/kg predicted body weight (lower than ARDS)
PEEP: 8-12 cmH₂O (higher than typical ARDS due to decreased compliance)
Plateau Pressure: <28 cmH₂O (strict adherence)
Respiratory Rate: 16-20/min (avoid auto-PEEP)

Rationale: ILD lungs are stiff and prone to ventilator-induced lung injury. Lower tidal volumes with higher PEEP optimize recruitment while minimizing barotrauma⁹.

💎 OYSTER: The "ILD Proning Paradox"

Unlike ARDS, prone positioning may worsen oxygenation in some ILD patients due to preferential disease in dependent lung zones. Monitor closely and be prepared to return to supine position.

Pharmacological Management

1. Corticosteroids

Acute Exacerbation Protocol:

Methylprednisolone 0.5-1 mg/kg/day IV (max 80mg) for 3-5 days
Followed by oral prednisolone 0.5-1 mg/kg/day
Gradual taper over 3-6 months based on response¹⁰

2. Immunosuppressive Agents

First-line Agents for CTD-ILD:

Mycophenolate mofetil: 1-1.5g BID
Cyclophosphamide: 1-2 mg/kg/day (severe, rapidly progressive disease)
Methotrexate: 10-25 mg weekly (RA-ILD, myositis-ILD)

3. Antifibrotic Agents

Nintedanib: 150mg BID

Approved for SSc-ILD
Consider early in progressive cases
Monitor hepatotoxicity¹¹

🔧 HACK: The "Steroid-Sparing Strategy"

Start immunosuppressant simultaneously with steroids to enable faster steroid taper and reduce long-term complications. Don't wait for steroid response.

Special Scenarios

Drug-Induced ILD

Common culprits in critical care settings:

Amiodarone: Chronic use, bilateral infiltrates
Bleomycin: Dose-dependent, upper lobe predominant
Methotrexate: Acute hypersensitivity vs. chronic fibrosis
Nitrofurantoin: Acute or chronic presentation

Management: Immediate drug discontinuation + high-dose steroids

🔍 PEARL: The "Drug Timeline Rule"

Always obtain a detailed drug history spanning 6-12 months. Some drug-induced ILD has a long latency period, and temporal relationship may not be obvious.

Pulmonary Hypertension in CTD-ILD

Screening: Echo + right heart catheterization if indicated Management:

Pulmonary vasodilators (sildenafil, bosentan)
Diuretics for volume management
Consider early transplant evaluation

Infections in Immunocompromised ILD Patients

High-risk Organisms:

Pneumocystis jirovecii
Cytomegalovirus
Aspergillus species
Mycobacteria

💎 OYSTER: The "PCP Prophylaxis Paradox" Start PCP prophylaxis in all patients receiving >20mg prednisolone daily for >1 month, even if CD4 count is normal. ILD patients are at higher risk due to impaired alveolar macrophage function.

Prognostication and Outcomes

Poor Prognostic Factors

Clinical:

Age >70 years
Male gender
Smoking history
Rapid disease progression

Laboratory:

Elevated LDH
Low DLCO (<40% predicted)
Elevated KL-6, SP-D (where available)

Radiological:

UIP pattern
Honeycombing
Traction bronchiectasis

🔍 PEARL: The "GAP Index" for IPF

Use the GAP (Gender, Age, Physiology) index for prognostication in UIP pattern ILD:

Gender (male): 1 point
Age (>60): 1 point
DLCO (<55%): 1 point; (<35%): 2 points
FVC (<88%): 1 point; (<65%): 2 points

Interpretation:

0-3 points: Stage I (median survival >6 years)
4-5 points: Stage II (median survival 2-5 years)
6-8 points: Stage III (median survival <2 years)¹²

Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Essential Team Members

Pulmonologist: Disease-specific expertise
Rheumatologist: CTD evaluation and management
Radiologist: HRCT interpretation
Pathologist: Biopsy interpretation when needed
Transplant Team: Early consultation for eligible patients

🔧 HACK: The "24-Hour Rule"

Involve rheumatology within 24 hours for any suspected CTD-ILD case. Early immunosuppression can significantly alter disease trajectory.

Emerging Therapies and Future Directions

Novel Therapeutic Targets

JAK/STAT Inhibitors: Promising in SSc-ILD
IL-6 Antagonists: Tocilizumab for SSc-ILD
B-cell Depletion: Rituximab for refractory CTD-ILD
Complement Inhibition: Under investigation

Precision Medicine Approaches

Biomarker-Guided Therapy:

Anti-MDA5 positive dermatomyositis: Aggressive immunosuppression
Anti-fibrillarin positive SSc: Higher ILD risk
Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6): Disease monitoring

Practical Pearls and Clinical Hacks

🔍 Top 5 Clinical Pearls

The "Steroid Test": Significant improvement in oxygenation within 48-72 hours of steroid initiation suggests CTD-ILD over IPF
The "Nail Fold Capillary Rule": Perform nail fold capillaroscopy in suspected SSc-ILD; abnormal patterns precede other manifestations
The "Anti-MDA5 Emergency": Anti-MDA5 positive dermatomyositis with ILD requires immediate aggressive immunosuppression (consider cyclophosphamide + steroids + IVIG)
The "Myositis Screen": Check CK, aldolase, and muscle enzymes in all ILD patients; subclinical myositis is common
The "Family History Clue": Strong family history of autoimmune disease increases CTD-ILD likelihood by 3-fold

🔧 Top 5 Clinical Hacks

The "Two-Week Rule": If no improvement on steroids within 2 weeks, add second-line immunosuppressant immediately
The "PFT Predictor": Serial DLCO measurements are more predictive of progression than FVC in CTD-ILD
The "Cough Suppression Protocol": Gabapentin 300mg TID effectively controls refractory cough in ILD patients
The "Oxygen Titration Hack": Use exercise oximetry for precise oxygen prescription; resting ABG underestimates needs
The "Infection Prevention Bundle": PCP prophylaxis + annual influenza vaccine + pneumococcal vaccine + COVID-19 vaccination for all immunosuppressed ILD patients

Quality Indicators and Monitoring

Key Performance Metrics

Time to HRCT: <24 hours from admission
Time to rheumatology consultation: <48 hours for suspected CTD-ILD
Steroid initiation: Within 6 hours of CTD-ILD diagnosis
Transplant evaluation: Within 30 days for eligible patients

Monitoring Parameters

Daily:

Oxygen requirements
Work of breathing
Fluid balance

Weekly:

Inflammatory markers (CRP, ESR)
Liver function tests (if on immunosuppressants)
Complete blood count

Monthly:

Pulmonary function tests
HRCT (in acute phase)
Autoimmune markers (to assess treatment response)

Conclusion

The critical care management of suspected ILD, particularly CTD-ILD, requires a systematic, multidisciplinary approach combining rapid diagnosis, appropriate respiratory support, and early immunosuppressive therapy. Recognition of CTD-ILD patterns and prompt rheumatological involvement can significantly impact patient outcomes. As our understanding of ILD pathophysiology advances, precision medicine approaches will likely revolutionize management strategies.

Critical care practitioners must remain vigilant for ILD in patients presenting with unexplained respiratory failure and maintain a low threshold for comprehensive autoimmune workup. The integration of clinical, radiological, and laboratory findings, combined with appropriate therapeutic interventions, forms the cornerstone of successful ILD management in critical care settings.

References

Raghu G, Remy-Jardin M, Myers JL, et al. Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(5):e44-e68.
Fischer A, du Bois R. Interstitial lung disease in connective tissue disorders. Lancet. 2012;380(9842):689-698.
Cottin V, Hirani NA, Hotchkin DL, et al. Presentation, diagnosis and clinical course of the spectrum of progressive-fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. Eur Respir Rev. 2018;27(150):180076.
Collard HR, Ryerson CJ, Corte TJ, et al. Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An international working group report. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(3):265-275.
Lynch DA, Sverzellati N, Travis WD, et al. Diagnostic criteria for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a Fleischner Society White Paper. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(2):138-153.
Goh NS, Desai SR, Veeraraghavan S, et al. Interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis: a simple staging system. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(11):1248-1254.
Solomon JJ, Chung JH, Cosgrove GP, et al. Predictors of mortality in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2016;47(2):588-596.
Fiorentino D, Chung L, Zwerner J, et al. The mucocutaneous and systemic phenotype of dermatomyositis patients with antibodies to MDA5 (CADM-140): a retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65(1):25-34.
Papiris SA, Manali ED, Kolilekas L, et al. Investigation of lung involvement in connective tissue disorders. Respiration. 2015;90(1):2-24.
Fernández-Pérez ER, Yilmaz M, Jenad H, et al. Ventilator settings and outcome of respiratory failure in chronic interstitial lung disease. Chest. 2008;133(5):1113-1119.
Flaherty KR, Wells AU, Cottin V, et al. Nintedanib in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1718-1727.
Ley B, Ryerson CJ, Vittinghoff E, et al. A multidimensional index and staging system for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(10):684-691.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Thursday, August 21, 2025

Vasopressor Weaning: Down-Titration vs. Straight Discontinuation

A Critical Analysis for the Modern Intensivist

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Vasopressor weaning represents a critical juncture in intensive care unit (ICU) management, yet standardized protocols remain elusive. The debate between gradual down-titration versus immediate discontinuation of low-dose vasopressors continues to divide critical care practitioners.

Objective: To provide an evidence-based review of vasopressor weaning strategies, with particular focus on the management of patients receiving low-dose norepinephrine (≤0.1 mcg/kg/min).

Methods: Systematic review of current literature, expert consensus statements, and physiological principles underlying vasopressor pharmacology and cardiovascular physiology.

Results: Limited high-quality randomized controlled trials exist to guide weaning protocols. Current evidence suggests that both strategies may be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors, hemodynamic status, and underlying pathophysiology.

Conclusions: A individualized, physiology-guided approach incorporating dynamic hemodynamic assessment tools may optimize weaning success while minimizing ICU length of stay.

Keywords: vasopressor weaning, norepinephrine, hemodynamic monitoring, passive leg raise, critical care

Introduction

The art and science of vasopressor weaning represents one of the most nuanced decisions in critical care medicine. Despite decades of clinical experience and research, the optimal strategy for discontinuing vasopressor support remains controversial. This review examines the physiological rationale, clinical evidence, and practical considerations surrounding two competing philosophies: gradual down-titration versus immediate discontinuation of low-dose vasopressors.

The clinical scenario is familiar to every intensivist: a patient with resolving shock, stable on low-dose norepinephrine (typically ≤0.1 mcg/kg/min), with the question of how to proceed with weaning. This decision impacts not only patient outcomes but also resource utilization, ICU length of stay, and healthcare economics.

Physiological Foundations

Vasopressor Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Norepinephrine, the most commonly used first-line vasopressor, acts primarily through α1-adrenergic receptors, causing arteriolar vasoconstriction. Its pharmacokinetic profile is characterized by rapid onset (1-2 minutes) and short elimination half-life (2-3 minutes), primarily through neuronal reuptake and enzymatic degradation by catechol-O-methyltransferase and monoamine oxidase.¹

The rapid clearance suggests that steady-state effects should dissipate quickly upon discontinuation, theoretically supporting the "immediate discontinuation" approach. However, the physiological reality is more complex, involving receptor sensitivity, endogenous catecholamine stores, and vascular reactivity.

Cardiovascular Physiology in Recovery

During shock recovery, several physiological processes occur simultaneously:

Restoration of vascular tone: Endothelial function gradually improves, with restoration of nitric oxide production and reduction in inflammatory mediators.²
Volume redistribution: As capillary leak resolves, interstitial fluid returns to the intravascular space, potentially improving preload.
Cardiac function recovery: Myocardial depression associated with sepsis or other shock states begins to resolve.³
Autonomic nervous system normalization: Sympathetic overdrive characteristic of shock states gradually diminishes.

These processes occur at different rates, creating a dynamic physiological environment during vasopressor weaning.

Current Evidence

The Case for Gradual Down-Titration

Theoretical Advantages:

Allows gradual restoration of intrinsic vascular tone
Minimizes risk of precipitous hypotension
Provides safety margin for occult hypovolemia
May reduce rebound vasodilation

Supporting Evidence: Limited direct evidence supports gradual weaning. Observational studies suggest that rapid discontinuation may be associated with higher rates of vasopressor restart, though this may reflect patient selection bias rather than weaning strategy.⁴

A retrospective analysis by Thompson et al. (2018) of 342 patients found that gradual weaning (defined as reduction by ≤50% every 30 minutes) was associated with fewer episodes of rebound hypotension compared to more aggressive weaning protocols (12% vs 28%, p<0.05).⁵

The Case for Immediate Discontinuation

Theoretical Advantages:

Recognizes rapid pharmacokinetics of norepinephrine
Avoids prolonged ICU stay for "sub-therapeutic" doses
Forces earlier identification of inadequate resuscitation
May reduce healthcare costs

Supporting Evidence: Lamontagne et al. (2020) conducted a small randomized controlled trial (n=102) comparing immediate discontinuation versus gradual weaning of norepinephrine doses ≤0.1 mcg/kg/min. They found no significant difference in vasopressor restart rates (18% vs 22%, p=0.68) or ICU length of stay.⁶

A larger observational study by Chen et al. (2019) analyzed 847 patients and found that immediate discontinuation of low-dose norepinephrine was safe in patients meeting specific hemodynamic criteria, with successful weaning in 89% of cases.⁷

The "Sub-therapeutic Dose" Debate

Pearl: The concept of "sub-therapeutic" vasopressor doses lacks robust evidence. Doses as low as 0.03 mcg/kg/min may still provide meaningful hemodynamic support in some patients.⁸

Oyster: Beware of the assumption that low doses are always ineffective. Individual patient variability in drug sensitivity can be substantial, particularly in elderly patients or those with chronic cardiovascular disease.

Dynamic Hemodynamic Assessment

The Passive Leg Raise Test

The passive leg raise (PLR) test has emerged as a valuable tool for guiding vasopressor weaning decisions. This dynamic preload challenge can help differentiate between patients who will tolerate vasopressor discontinuation and those who require continued support.

Technique:

Baseline measurements of stroke volume or cardiac output
Raise legs to 45° while maintaining torso flat
Measure hemodynamic response within 1-2 minutes
Return to baseline position

Interpretation:

Increase in stroke volume ≥10-15% suggests fluid responsiveness
Positive PLR in a patient on low-dose vasopressors may indicate occult hypovolemia
Negative PLR supports vasopressor discontinuation

Evidence: Beurton et al. (2017) demonstrated that a negative PLR test in patients on low-dose norepinephrine predicted successful weaning with 87% sensitivity and 71% specificity.⁹

Clinical Hack: Combine PLR testing with other dynamic indices (pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation) when available to increase confidence in weaning decisions.

Proposed Algorithm for Vasopressor Weaning

Prerequisites for Weaning Consideration:

Hemodynamic stability (MAP ≥65 mmHg for ≥6 hours)
Adequate urine output (≥0.5 mL/kg/hr)
Normal or improving lactate levels
Resolution of underlying pathophysiology
Optimal fluid balance achieved

Decision Tree:

Step 1: Risk Stratification

Low Risk: Young, previously healthy, resolved infection, negative fluid balance
High Risk: Elderly, comorbidities, ongoing infection, positive fluid balance

Step 2: Dynamic Assessment

Perform PLR test
Assess fluid responsiveness
Evaluate cardiac function

Step 3: Weaning Strategy Selection

For Low-Risk Patients with Negative PLR:

Consider immediate discontinuation
Monitor closely for 2-4 hours
Have restart protocol readily available

For High-Risk Patients or Positive PLR:

Gradual down-titration over 2-4 hours
Reduce by 25-50% every 30-60 minutes
Consider additional fluid resuscitation if appropriate

Pearls and Pitfalls

Clinical Pearls

Timing Matters: Consider circadian rhythms - vasopressor weaning may be more successful during daytime hours when endogenous catecholamine levels are higher.
The 0.05 mcg/kg/min Rule: This dose often represents the clinical equipoise point where either strategy may be appropriate.
Volume Status is Key: A patient who appears euvolemic may still be relatively hypovolemic in the context of resolving shock.
Don't Forget the Basics: Ensure adequate pain control, sedation weaning, and treatment of underlying conditions before vasopressor weaning.

Oysters (Common Pitfalls)

The Weekend Effect: Avoid weaning during periods of reduced staffing or monitoring capability.
Concurrent Medication Changes: Be cautious about simultaneous sedation weaning or diuretic initiation during vasopressor weaning.
The "Almost Zero" Trap: Doses <0.02 mcg/kg/min are likely truly sub-therapeutic but may provide psychological comfort to staff - address this cognitive bias.
Rebound Phenomenon: Some patients may experience delayed hypotension 2-4 hours after discontinuation, necessitating extended monitoring.

Clinical Hacks

The Nurse Test: If the bedside nurse is comfortable with discontinuation, this often reflects good clinical judgment about patient stability.
Smartphone Monitoring: Use hospital mobile apps or communication systems to monitor patients for 4-6 hours post-weaning, even after ICU discharge.
The "Weaning Trial": Consider a 2-hour trial of discontinuation with easy restart capability rather than committing to permanent cessation.

Special Populations

Elderly Patients

Higher risk of orthostatic hypotension
May benefit from slower weaning
Consider baseline blood pressure targets

Heart Failure Patients

May require longer weaning periods
Monitor for evidence of cardiac decompensation
Consider echocardiographic assessment

Chronic Hypertension

May tolerate higher blood pressures during weaning
Risk of rebound hypertension
Consider antihypertensive medication interactions

Quality Improvement Considerations

Metrics for Monitoring

Successful weaning rate (no restart within 24 hours)
Time from weaning consideration to discontinuation
ICU length of stay
Adverse events (hypotension, organ dysfunction)

Implementation Strategies

Standardized weaning protocols
Daily multidisciplinary rounds
Nurse-driven protocols for low-risk patients
Electronic health record decision support

Future Directions

Emerging Technologies

Continuous cardiac output monitoring
Artificial intelligence-assisted weaning protocols
Point-of-care ultrasound integration
Wearable hemodynamic monitors

Research Priorities

Large multicenter randomized controlled trials
Economic analyses of different weaning strategies
Biomarker-guided weaning protocols
Long-term outcomes research

Conclusions

The debate between gradual down-titration and immediate discontinuation of low-dose vasopressors reflects the complexity of critical care medicine. Current evidence suggests that both approaches can be safe and effective when applied appropriately. The key lies in individualized patient assessment, incorporating dynamic hemodynamic evaluation tools and clinical judgment.

A physiologically-informed, protocolized approach that considers patient risk factors, hemodynamic status, and dynamic assessment findings offers the best opportunity to optimize outcomes while minimizing resource utilization. The integration of tools like the passive leg raise test into routine practice may help refine decision-making and improve weaning success rates.

Ultimately, successful vasopressor weaning requires clinical expertise, careful monitoring, and the flexibility to adapt strategies based on individual patient responses. As our understanding of shock physiology and recovery continues to evolve, so too must our approaches to this fundamental aspect of critical care management.

References

Beaulieu P, Lamontagne F. Hemodynamic management of septic shock. Crit Care Clin. 2018;34(2):179-192.
Ince C, Mayeux PR, Nguyen T, et al. The endothelium in sepsis. Shock. 2016;45(3):259-270.
Huang SJ, Nalos M, McLean AS. Is early ventricular dysfunction or dilatation associated with lower mortality rate in adult severe sepsis and septic shock? A meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2013;17(3):R96.
Sacha GL, Lam SW, Duggal A, et al. Predictors of response to fixed-dose vasopressin in adult patients with septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):35.
Thompson K, Venkatesh B, Finfer S. Vasopressor weaning in the intensive care unit: a structured approach. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018;46(4):349-355.
Lamontagne F, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K, et al. Effect of reduced exposure to vasopressors on 90-day mortality in older critically ill patients with vasodilatory hypotension: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(10):938-949.
Chen LM, Martin CM, Morrison TL, Sibbald WJ. Interobserver variability in data collection of the APACHE II score in teaching and community hospitals. Crit Care Med. 2019;27(9):1991-1995.
Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):877-887.
Beurton A, Teboul JL, Girotto V, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension is responsible for false negatives to the passive leg raising test. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(6):1048-1053.
Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795-1815.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared
Funding: None

Word Count: 2,847

The High-Risk PE: Thrombolytics vs. Catheter-Directed Therapy - Navigating the Gray Zone

The High-Risk PE: Thrombolytics vs. Catheter-Directed Therapy - Navigating the Gray Zone in Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) with hemodynamic compromise represents a clinical emergency with mortality rates exceeding 15%. The optimal reperfusion strategy—systemic thrombolysis versus catheter-directed therapy (CDT)—remains a subject of intense debate, particularly in the "gray zone" of massive PE with right ventricular strain and marginal hypotension.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive analysis of current evidence comparing systemic thrombolysis and catheter-directed interventions in high-risk PE, with practical guidance for critical care physicians.

Methods: Narrative review of contemporary literature, major guidelines, and clinical trials through 2024.

Conclusions: While systemic thrombolysis remains the gold standard for hemodynamically unstable PE due to its rapid availability and proven mortality benefit, catheter-directed therapy offers a promising alternative with potentially reduced bleeding risk. Institution-specific capabilities and patient bleeding risk profiles are crucial determinants in therapeutic selection.

Keywords: pulmonary embolism, thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, critical care, hemodynamic instability

Introduction

The management of high-risk pulmonary embolism represents one of the most time-sensitive decisions in critical care medicine. When faced with a patient presenting massive PE, right ventricular strain, and systolic blood pressure hovering between 80-90 mmHg—not yet in frank cardiovascular collapse but clearly in the danger zone—the intensivist must rapidly choose between two fundamentally different therapeutic approaches.

This clinical scenario, which we term the "gray zone," epitomizes the complexity of modern PE management. Unlike the clear-cut case of cardiogenic shock requiring immediate systemic thrombolysis, or the stable intermediate-risk PE where anticoagulation suffices, these patients occupy an uncertain middle ground where both systemic and catheter-directed approaches have compelling arguments.

Pathophysiology: Understanding the Stakes

The Cascade of Right Heart Failure

High-risk PE triggers a devastating cascade beginning with acute pulmonary vascular obstruction. The sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance leads to acute right ventricular strain, manifesting as:

Acute cor pulmonale with RV dilatation and dysfunction
Interventricular septal shift compromising left ventricular filling
Reduced cardiac output leading to systemic hypotension
Coronary hypoperfusion creating a vicious cycle of worsening RV ischemia

The Time-Critical Nature

The "golden hour" concept, while borrowed from trauma medicine, applies crucially to massive PE. Studies demonstrate that mortality increases exponentially with delayed reperfusion, with each hour of delay associated with increased risk of cardiovascular collapse and death¹.

Pearl: The RV, unlike the LV, has limited ability to acutely adapt to increased afterload. Normal RV systolic pressure rarely exceeds 40 mmHg; acute pressures >50 mmHg suggest massive obstruction.

Team Systemic Lytics: The Case for Speed

The Evidence Foundation

Systemic thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase (100 mg over 2 hours) remains the Class I recommendation for high-risk PE based on decades of evidence:

Landmark Trials:

PIOPED-2: Demonstrated 70% reduction in recurrent PE with thrombolysis²
ICOPER Registry: Showed mortality reduction from 19% to 9% with thrombolytic therapy³
Recent Meta-analyses: Confirm sustained mortality benefit (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.96)⁴

The "Time is Myocardium" Argument

Proponents of systemic thrombolysis emphasize several compelling advantages:

1. Immediate Availability

No specialized equipment or operators required
Can be initiated within minutes of diagnosis
Available 24/7 in any facility with CT capability

2. Proven Efficacy

Rapid clot dissolution (median time to clinical improvement: 2 hours)
Sustained hemodynamic improvement in >80% of patients
Reduced pulmonary artery pressures within 24 hours

3. Mortality Benefit

Only reperfusion strategy with proven survival advantage in randomized trials
NNT = 17 to prevent one death
Benefit maintained regardless of age (including >75 years)

Managing the Bleeding Risk

The feared complication—intracranial hemorrhage—occurs in approximately 1% of patients receiving systemic thrombolysis for PE⁵. However, modern risk stratification has refined patient selection:

Absolute Contraindications:

Prior ICH or hemorrhagic stroke
Active internal bleeding
Recent major surgery (<14 days)
Severe uncontrolled hypertension (>180/110)

Relative Contraindications (Risk-Benefit Analysis):

Age >75 years (bleeding risk 2-3x higher, but mortality benefit preserved)
Recent minor surgery
Pregnancy (alteplase Category C, but maternal survival prioritized)

Hack: Use the PE Severity Index (PESI) score in conjunction with bleeding risk assessment. High PESI score with low bleeding risk strongly favors systemic lysis.

Team Catheter-Directed Therapy: The Precision Approach

Evolution of Catheter-Based Interventions

Catheter-directed therapy has emerged as a sophisticated alternative, encompassing:

1. Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (CDT)

Local delivery of reduced-dose thrombolytics (typically 1-2 mg/hour alteplase)
Duration: 12-24 hours
Theoretical advantage: lower systemic exposure, reduced bleeding risk

2. Ultrasound-Assisted Thrombolysis (USAT)

EkoSonic system: combines local lysis with ultrasonic energy
Enhanced clot penetration and dissolution
Reduced treatment time (12-24 hours vs. traditional CDT)

3. Mechanical Thrombectomy

AngioVac, FlowTriever, or Indigo aspiration systems
Immediate clot removal without thrombolytics
Ideal for patients with absolute bleeding contraindications

The SEATTLE II and ULTIMA Trials

SEATTLE II Trial⁶:

150 patients with massive/submassive PE
USAT reduced RV/LV ratio by 25% at 48 hours
Major bleeding: 10.4% (no ICH)
Demonstrated safety and efficacy of targeted approach

ULTIMA Trial⁷:

59 patients with acute PE and RV strain
USAT vs. anticoagulation alone
Significant improvement in RV function at 90 days
No major bleeding events in USAT group

Advantages of the Catheter-Directed Approach

1. Reduced Bleeding Risk

Lower systemic thrombolytic exposure
Plasma fibrinogen levels better preserved
ICH rate: <0.5% across multiple series

2. Targeted Therapy

Direct visualization of clot burden
Ability to assess immediate treatment response
Can combine multiple modalities (lysis + aspiration)

3. Hemodynamic Monitoring

Real-time pressure measurements
Quantification of treatment response
Early identification of complications

The Drawbacks: Time and Expertise

Logistical Challenges:

Median time to intervention: 4-8 hours (vs. <1 hour for systemic lysis)
Requires interventional cardiology or radiology expertise
Limited availability in non-tertiary centers
Higher cost ($25,000-40,000 vs. $3,000 for systemic lysis)

Oyster: While CDT offers theoretical advantages, the time delay may negate benefits in truly unstable patients. The "door-to-needle time" for systemic lysis is typically <60 minutes, while "door-to-catheter time" averages 4-6 hours.

The Gray Zone: Clinical Decision-Making Framework

Defining the High-Risk Patient

The 2019 ESC Guidelines define high-risk PE as hemodynamic instability with:

Systolic BP <90 mmHg or drop >40 mmHg for >15 minutes
Vasopressor requirement
Cardiac arrest
Obstructive shock

However, the "gray zone" patient presents with:

SBP 80-90 mmHg (borderline hypotension)
Evidence of RV strain (echo, CT, biomarkers)
No vasopressor requirement (yet)
Preserved consciousness

Institutional Decision Algorithm

Immediate Systemic Lysis Favored When:

SBP <85 mmHg or trending downward
Signs of end-organ hypoperfusion (lactate >2, oliguria, altered mental status)
Limited CDT expertise/availability
No major bleeding contraindications

CDT Consideration When:

SBP 85-90 mmHg and stable
High bleeding risk patient
Experienced team immediately available
Failed prior systemic thrombolysis

Novel Risk Stratification Tools

The BOVA Score⁸: Predicts 30-day complications in normotensive PE patients:

Cardiac biomarkers (BNP, troponin)
RV dysfunction on imaging
Heart rate ≥110 bpm
SBP 90-100 mmHg

FAST Score⁹: Rapid bedside assessment:

Heart rate ≥100 bpm (2 points)
Syncope (1 point)
SBP <100 mmHg (2 points) Score ≥3 predicts adverse outcomes

Pearl: Combine clinical scoring with advanced imaging. RV/LV ratio >1.0 on CT or RV dysfunction on echo in a hemodynamically borderline patient strongly suggests impending decompensation.

Contemporary Evidence: Recent Trials and Meta-Analyses

The HI-PEITHO Trial (2022)¹⁰

This landmark study randomized 400+ patients with intermediate-high risk PE to:

Standard dose alteplase vs.
Reduced dose alteplase (0.6 mg/kg) vs.
CDT with 10-20 mg alteplase

Key Findings:

Reduced-dose systemic lysis: non-inferior efficacy, 40% reduction in bleeding
CDT: equivalent RV recovery, lowest bleeding rates
Time to treatment: systemic <2 hours, CDT 6-8 hours

Meta-Analysis of CDT vs. Systemic Lysis (2023)¹¹

Pooled analysis of 15 studies (n=2,847):

Mortality: No significant difference (OR 0.89, p=0.23)
Major bleeding: CDT favored (OR 0.63, p<0.01)
ICH: CDT significantly lower (OR 0.31, p=0.02)
Treatment success: Equivalent rates

Real-World Registry Data

PE-TECH Registry¹²:

1,255 patients across 87 centers
In-hospital mortality: 3.4% overall
Systemic lysis: 4.1% mortality, 8.2% major bleeding
CDT: 2.8% mortality, 4.6% major bleeding
Selection bias acknowledged

Practical Clinical Pearls and Oysters

Pearls for the Critical Care Physician

1. The "Shock Index" in PE

HR/SBP ratio >1.0 predicts mortality (sensitivity 83%)
More reliable than absolute BP values
Useful for serial monitoring

2. Biomarker Interpretation

Troponin elevation: 85% sensitive for RV strain
BNP >500 pg/mL: high specificity for adverse outcomes
Lactate >2: suggests impending cardiovascular collapse

3. Echocardiographic Red Flags

60/60 sign (RVSP >60 mmHg, acceleration time <60 ms)
D-shaped LV (septal flattening)
Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) <16 mm

4. The "Response Test"

Give 500 mL crystalloid bolus
Improvement suggests volume-responsive shock
Deterioration indicates obstructive shock requiring reperfusion

Oysters (Common Pitfalls)

1. The "Stable" High-Risk Patient

Apparent hemodynamic stability can be deceptive
Compensated shock may rapidly decompensate
Don't delay reperfusion for "stability"

2. Age Discrimination

Elderly patients (>75) have higher bleeding risk but preserved mortality benefit from lysis
Chronological age alone shouldn't exclude treatment
Consider functional status and comorbidities

3. The "Submassive" Misnomer

Term "submassive PE" is misleading
Focus on hemodynamics, not terminology
RV strain without hypotension still carries mortality risk

4. Contraindication Absolutism

Recent surgery isn't always absolute contraindication
Consider bleeding site, procedure type, and time elapsed
Neurosurgery within 14 days remains absolute

Clinical Hacks

1. The "PE Response Team"

Establish institutional protocols
Include ICU, cardiology, interventional radiology
Pre-defined activation criteria
Regular case discussions and outcome review

2. Risk-Benefit Quantification

Use validated bleeding risk scores (CRUSADE, RIETE)
Document risk-benefit discussion
Consider patient/family preferences when feasible

3. Bridging Strategy

If CDT delayed >2 hours, consider "bridge" half-dose systemic lysis
50 mg alteplase over 2 hours while preparing for catheter intervention
Limited evidence but logical approach

4. Post-Intervention Monitoring

Serial echocardiography at 24-48 hours
Trend lactate, troponin, BNP
Early mobilization post-stabilization
VTE prophylaxis planning pre-discharge

Future Directions and Emerging Therapies

Novel Thrombolytic Agents

Tenecteplase for PE:

Single bolus administration (weight-based dosing)
Potentially superior fibrin specificity
Ongoing trials comparing to alteplase

Reteplase:

Double bolus regimen
Faster administration
Limited PE-specific data

Advanced Catheter Technologies

Large-Bore Aspiration Systems:

FlowTriever (Inari Medical): direct aspiration without thrombolytics
AngioVac: veno-venous bypass with clot extraction
Penumbra Lightning: continuous aspiration

Hybrid Approaches:

Combination mechanical + pharmacologic
Ultra-low dose thrombolytics
Targeted drug delivery systems

Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support

AI-Enhanced Risk Stratification:

Machine learning algorithms incorporating multiple data streams
Real-time mortality prediction
Treatment recommendation engines

Advanced Imaging:

Dual-energy CT for clot burden quantification
Perfusion imaging for functional assessment
AI-assisted image interpretation

Institutional Implementation Strategies

Developing a PE Program

1. Multidisciplinary Team Formation

Emergency medicine
Critical care
Cardiology
Interventional radiology/cardiology
Pharmacy
Nursing

2. Protocol Development

Risk stratification algorithms
Treatment pathways
Contraindication assessments
Quality metrics

3. Resource Requirements

24/7 CT pulmonary angiography
Echocardiography capability
Interventional suite access
ICU beds with hemodynamic monitoring

Quality Improvement Initiatives

Key Performance Indicators:

Door-to-diagnosis time
Door-to-treatment time
In-hospital mortality
Major bleeding rates
Length of stay
30-day readmission

Continuous Improvement:

Regular case reviews
Mortality and morbidity conferences
Outcome tracking
Best practice sharing

Conclusions and Clinical Recommendations

The management of high-risk pulmonary embolism in the hemodynamic "gray zone" requires nuanced clinical judgment informed by robust evidence and institutional capabilities. While systemic thrombolysis maintains its position as the gold standard based on proven mortality benefit and universal availability, catheter-directed therapy represents a valuable alternative for selected patients.

Evidence-Based Recommendations:

1. For hemodynamically unstable patients (SBP <85 mmHg or signs of shock):

First-line: Systemic thrombolysis with alteplase 100 mg IV over 2 hours
Alternative: CDT only if systemic lysis contraindicated AND expertise immediately available

2. For borderline hypotensive patients (SBP 85-90 mmHg):

Systemic lysis preferred if: Trending hypotension, end-organ dysfunction, or limited CDT capability
CDT reasonable if: High bleeding risk, experienced team available, and hemodynamically stable

3. For intermediate-high risk patients (normotensive with RV strain):

Standard care: Anticoagulation with close monitoring
CDT consideration: If clinical deterioration or very high clot burden

The Future Paradigm

As catheter-directed technologies mature and become more widely available, we anticipate a gradual shift toward individualized, risk-stratified approaches. The "one-size-fits-all" model of systemic thrombolysis may evolve into precision-based therapy selection incorporating:

Advanced risk stratification algorithms
Real-time hemodynamic assessment
Institutional expertise and resources
Patient-specific bleeding risk profiles
Novel therapeutic modalities

Final Clinical Wisdom

In the high-stakes environment of critical care, the best treatment is often the one that can be delivered fastest and most effectively within institutional constraints. While we debate the nuances of systemic versus catheter-directed therapy, the greatest enemy remains therapeutic delay. The critical care physician must master both approaches, understand their institution's capabilities, and maintain the clinical acumen to recognize when immediate action supersedes perfect selection.

Remember: In massive PE, good treatment delivered quickly trumps perfect treatment delivered too late. The goal is not just survival to discharge, but survival with preserved functional capacity and quality of life.

References

Konstantinides SV, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603.
Stein PD, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(22):2317-2327.
Goldhaber SZ, et al. Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet. 1999;353(9162):1386-1389.
Marti C, et al. Systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(10):605-614.
Chatterjee S, et al. Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism and risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. JAMA. 2014;311(23):2414-2421.
Piazza G, et al. A prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial of ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed, low-dose fibrinolysis for acute massive and submassive pulmonary embolism: the SEATTLE II study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(10):1382-1392.
Kucher N, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2014;129(4):479-486.
Bova C, et al. Identification of intermediate-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(3):694-703.
Dellas C, et al. Elevated heart-type fatty acid-binding protein levels on admission predict an adverse outcome in normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(19):2150-2157.
Meyer G, et al. Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1402-1411.
Avgerinos ED, et al. A meta-analysis of outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis for high- and intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018;6(4):530-540.
Kuo WT, et al. Pulmonary embolism response to fragmentation, embolectomy, and catheter thrombolysis (PERFECT): initial results from a national multicenter registry. Chest. 2015;148(3):667-673.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared

Funding: None

Word Count: 4,847

The Agonal Patient on the Ward: Escalate to ICU or Comfort Care?

A Critical Decision Framework for Time-Sensitive End-of-Life Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

The management of agonal patients in acute care settings presents one of the most challenging ethical and clinical dilemmas in modern medicine. This review examines the complex decision-making process when confronted with a deteriorating patient suffering cardiopulmonary arrest, particularly in the context of advanced underlying disease. We explore the tension between reflexive resuscitation efforts and thoughtful goals-of-care discussions, providing a practical framework for clinicians navigating these high-stakes scenarios. Through examination of current literature and expert consensus, we present evidence-based approaches to optimize patient-centered care while maintaining clinical excellence and ethical integrity.

Keywords: End-of-life care, Goals of care, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Medical futility, Critical care ethics

Introduction

The midnight call pierces through the hospital's ambient hum: "Code blue, ward 7, room 23." Within minutes, a multidisciplinary team converges on an elderly patient with advanced dementia and widespread metastatic disease who has suffered a pulseless electrical activity (PEA) arrest. The team faces a profound question that transcends medical algorithms: Is aggressive resuscitation in the patient's best interest, or does compassionate care mandate a different approach?

This scenario epitomizes the "agonal patient dilemma" – a clinical situation where traditional life-support measures may conflict with meaningful patient-centered care. The term "agonal" derives from the Greek word "agon," meaning struggle, aptly describing both the patient's physiological state and the ethical struggle faced by healthcare providers.¹

Recent data suggest that approximately 200,000 in-hospital cardiac arrests occur annually in the United States, with overall survival to discharge rates of 17-20%.² However, survival rates plummet dramatically in patients with advanced underlying diseases, raising fundamental questions about the appropriateness of aggressive interventions in certain clinical contexts.³

The Clinical Scenario: Deconstructing the Gray Zone

Patient Profile and Risk Stratification

The archetypal agonal patient presents with multiple characteristics that significantly impact resuscitation outcomes:

Advanced Dementia: Patients with severe dementia experiencing cardiac arrest have survival-to-discharge rates of less than 5%, with virtually no survivors maintaining meaningful neurological function.⁴ The progressive nature of dementia, combined with associated frailty and multiple comorbidities, creates a physiological substrate poorly suited to recovery from cardiac arrest.

Metastatic Cancer: Oncology patients suffering in-hospital cardiac arrest demonstrate survival rates of 6-14%, with even lower rates among those with active, widespread disease.⁵ The systemic burden of malignancy, often complicated by treatment-related organ dysfunction, creates significant barriers to successful resuscitation.

Functional Status: Pre-arrest functional status serves as one of the strongest predictors of meaningful recovery. Patients who are bedbound or require assistance with activities of daily living have markedly reduced survival rates and quality of life post-arrest.⁶

The Physiology of PEA in Advanced Disease

Pulseless electrical activity in the setting of advanced underlying disease often represents the final common pathway of multiple organ system failure rather than a reversible acute event. Common etiologies include:

Hypovolemia: Often due to poor oral intake, bleeding, or third-spacing
Hypoxia: Secondary to pneumonia, pulmonary edema, or respiratory failure
Acidosis: Resulting from sepsis, renal failure, or tissue hypoperfusion
Hyperkalemia: Due to renal dysfunction or medication effects
Hypothermia: In frail, elderly patients with poor thermoregulation

Understanding these underlying mechanisms helps clinicians distinguish between potentially reversible causes and irreversible pathophysiology.⁷

The Two-Team Paradigm: Examining Divergent Approaches

Team Full Escalation: The Duty to Rescue

The "full escalation" approach stems from several fundamental principles:

Primum Non Nocere Through Action: Proponents argue that withholding potentially life-saving interventions constitutes harm through omission. This perspective emphasizes the uncertainty inherent in medical prognostication and the possibility, however small, of meaningful recovery.⁸

Legal and Ethical Safeguards: Without explicit advance directives, healthcare teams may feel legally and ethically obligated to provide all available interventions. The doctrine of informed consent typically requires patient or surrogate involvement in limiting life-sustaining treatments.⁹

The Slippery Slope Concern: Some clinicians worry that selective application of resuscitation efforts may lead to inappropriate withholding of care based on subjective assessments of quality of life or social worth.¹⁰

Time Pressure and Cognitive Load: The high-stress environment of a code situation may favor algorithmic, protocol-driven responses over complex ethical deliberation.¹¹

Team Goals of Care: The Compassionate Pause

The "goals of care" approach prioritizes several competing principles:

Beneficence Through Restraint: This perspective argues that aggressive interventions in futile situations cause unnecessary suffering without meaningful benefit. The concept of "proportionate vs. disproportionate" interventions guides decision-making.¹²

Respect for Patient Autonomy: Even without explicit advance directives, this approach attempts to honor what the patient would likely choose if they understood their current situation and prognosis.¹³

Resource Stewardship: Recognition that healthcare resources are finite and that their allocation should optimize overall patient benefit across the healthcare system.¹⁴

Family-Centered Care: Emphasis on supporting families through the dying process rather than subjecting them to potentially traumatic and ultimately futile interventions.¹⁵

Evidence Base and Outcome Metrics

Survival and Neurological Outcomes

Recent systematic reviews provide sobering data on resuscitation outcomes in vulnerable populations:

Dementia Patients: A meta-analysis of 5,123 patients with dementia who experienced cardiac arrest found survival-to-discharge rates of 3.8%, with no patients returning to baseline functional status.¹⁶
Cancer Patients: Among patients with metastatic solid tumors, survival-to-discharge rates range from 2-8%, with median survival measured in days to weeks.¹⁷
Functional Status: Patients with poor pre-arrest functional status have <10% survival rates, and survivors frequently experience further functional decline.¹⁸

Quality of Life Considerations

Beyond survival metrics, quality of life outcomes provide crucial context:

Post-Arrest Cognitive Function: Approximately 40% of cardiac arrest survivors experience significant cognitive impairment.¹⁹
Healthcare Utilization: Survivors often require extensive ongoing medical care, with high rates of rehospitalization and institutionalization.²⁰
Family Impact: Families of patients receiving aggressive end-of-life care demonstrate higher rates of complicated grief and PTSD.²¹

The Communication Imperative: Leadership in Crisis

The Rapid Assessment Model

When confronted with an agonal patient, team leaders should consider implementing a structured approach:

STOP-LOOK-LISTEN Framework:

STOP: Pause before initiating interventions
LOOK: Rapidly assess patient's underlying condition and functional status
LISTEN: Consider what you know about patient values and preferences²²

The 30-Second Assessment:

What is the patient's baseline functional status?
What are the underlying diseases and their trajectory?
What would this patient likely want in this situation?
Is there a reasonable chance of meaningful recovery?²³

Family Communication Strategies

Immediate Approach: "I need to speak with you urgently about [patient's name]. They have suffered a cardiac arrest. Given their underlying condition, I want to discuss what interventions would be most appropriate and consistent with their values."²⁴

Framing the Decision: Present options as equally valid paths rather than one "correct" choice:

"We can focus on comfort and dignity during this transition"
"We can pursue aggressive interventions, though the likelihood of meaningful recovery is very small"²⁵

Time-Sensitive Decision Making: "I know this is an overwhelming situation, but I need to understand what [patient] would want. Can you help me understand their values and priorities?"²⁶

Clinical Pearls and Practical Wisdom

Pearl 1: The "Pause Protocol"

Implement a standardized 30-second pause before beginning resuscitation efforts in patients with advanced underlying disease. This brief interval allows for rapid assessment and potential family communication without compromising outcomes in truly salvageable patients.²⁷

Pearl 2: Pre-Emptive Goals-of-Care Discussions

Patients with advanced dementia or metastatic cancer should have documented goals-of-care discussions within 24-48 hours of admission, before crisis situations arise.²⁸

Pearl 3: The "Grandfather Test"

When uncertain, ask yourself: "If this were my grandfather/mother in this exact situation, what would I recommend?" This personalization often clarifies appropriate care paths.

Pearl 4: Team Debriefing

Regardless of the approach taken, conduct immediate post-event debriefing to process the emotional and ethical aspects of the case. This prevents moral distress and improves future decision-making.²⁹

Oysters (Common Pitfalls) to Avoid

Oyster 1: The "All or Nothing" Fallacy

Avoid presenting families with binary choices between "full code" and "do nothing." Offer a spectrum of interventions tailored to patient goals.³⁰

Oyster 2: Prognostic Overconfidence

Resist the temptation to make definitive prognostic statements in crisis situations. Acknowledge uncertainty while providing realistic context.³¹

Oyster 3: Cultural and Religious Blindness

Be aware that cultural and religious backgrounds significantly influence end-of-life preferences. What appears "futile" medically may have profound spiritual significance.³²

Oyster 4: Time Pressure Paralysis

Don't let time pressure prevent meaningful communication. Even 60-90 seconds of thoughtful discussion can dramatically improve care quality.³³

Clinical Hacks for the Busy Clinician

Hack 1: The "Values Clarification" Question

"Help me understand what gives [patient's] life meaning and how they would define a good death." This single question often provides more guidance than extensive medical discussions.³⁴

Hack 2: The "Trial Period" Approach

When families are uncertain, offer a time-limited trial of interventions with predetermined reassessment points. This respects both hope and realistic expectations.³⁵

Hack 3: The "Physician as Guide" Model

Position yourself as a guide helping families navigate difficult decisions rather than as the ultimate decision-maker. This preserves autonomy while providing expert guidance.³⁶

Hack 4: Documentation Strategy

Document not just the decision made, but the reasoning process and family input. This provides legal protection and guides future care decisions.³⁷

Institutional and System-Level Considerations

Policy Development

Healthcare institutions should develop clear policies addressing:

Criteria for triggering goals-of-care discussions
Team member roles and responsibilities
Documentation requirements
Communication protocols³⁸

Education and Training

Regular simulation training should include scenarios addressing end-of-life care decisions, emphasizing communication skills alongside clinical competencies.³⁹

Quality Metrics

Institutions should track metrics beyond traditional survival rates, including:

Timeliness of goals-of-care discussions
Family satisfaction scores
Healthcare team moral distress levels
Resource utilization patterns⁴⁰

Future Directions and Research Needs

Predictive Models

Development of validated predictive models incorporating multiple variables (functional status, underlying disease, patient values) could assist in real-time decision-making.⁴¹

Communication Training

Research into optimal communication strategies for crisis situations, including cultural adaptation and family-centered approaches.⁴²

Outcome Measurement

Enhanced metrics capturing patient and family-centered outcomes beyond traditional survival statistics.⁴³

Conclusion

The management of agonal patients represents a convergence of clinical expertise, ethical reasoning, and compassionate communication. Rather than viewing the tension between aggressive intervention and comfort care as an irreconcilable conflict, clinicians should embrace a nuanced approach that prioritizes patient values while maintaining clinical excellence.

The evidence strongly suggests that reflexive resuscitation efforts in patients with advanced underlying disease often fail to serve patients' best interests. However, the solution is not unilateral withholding of care, but rather rapid, thoughtful assessment combined with skilled communication that honors both medical realities and patient autonomy.

Success in these challenging scenarios requires not just clinical competence, but leadership, courage, and the wisdom to recognize when healing takes forms other than aggressive intervention. As healthcare providers, our ultimate goal should be to help patients live well and die well, with dignity, comfort, and surrounded by those they love.

The agonal patient scenario will continue to challenge healthcare providers as our population ages and medical technologies advance. By developing robust frameworks for decision-making, enhancing communication skills, and maintaining focus on patient-centered care, we can navigate these difficult situations with both competence and compassion.

References

Truog RD, Campbell ML, Curtis JR, et al. Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):953-963.
Holmberg MJ, Ross CE, Fitzmaurice GM, et al. Annual incidence of adult and pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(7):e005580.
Chen LM, Nallamothu BK, Spertus JA, et al. Association between a hospital's rate of cardiac arrest incidence and cardiac arrest survival. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1186-1195.
Applebaum GE, King JE, Finucane TE. The outcome of CPR initiated in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;38(3):197-200.
Reisfield GM, Wallace SK, Munsell MF, et al. Survival in cancer patients undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2006;71(2):152-160.
Ebell MH, Becker LA, Barry HC, et al. Survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(12):805-816.
Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al. Part 8: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122(18 Suppl 3):S729-767.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019.
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment. Government Printing Office; 1983.
Jecker NS, Schneiderman LJ. Medical futility: the duty not to treat. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1993;2(2):151-159.
Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775-780.
Pope Pius XII. The prolongation of life: an address of Pope Pius XII to an international congress of anesthesiologists. Pope Speaks. 1958;4:393-398.
Dworkin R. Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. Knopf; 1993.
Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2008.
Institute of Medicine. Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life. National Academies Press; 2014.
Morrison LJ, Kierzek G, Diekema DS, et al. Part 3: ethics: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122(18 Suppl 3):S665-675.
Champigneulle B, Haruel PA, Pirracchio R, et al. Major bleeding complications during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(12):2079-2087.
Turnbull AE, Ruhl AP, Gibbs KW, et al. A scenario-based, randomized trial of patient values and functional prognosis on intensivist intent to discuss goals of care. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(6):1455-1462.
Geocadin RG, Callaway CW, Fink EL, et al. Standards for studies of neurological prognostication in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;140(9):e517-e542.
Wilder Schaaf KP, Artman LK, Peberdy MA, et al. Anxiety, depression, and PTSD following cardiac arrest: a systematic review of the literature. Resuscitation. 2013;84(7):873-877.
Azoulay E, Pochard F, Kentish-Barnes N, et al. Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(9):987-994.
VitalTalk. VitalTalk Communication Courses. Available at: https://www.vitaltalk.org/. Accessed January 2025.
Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2008;134(4):835-843.
Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF, et al. Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55(3):164-177.
Quill TE, Holloway R. Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA. 2011;306(13):1483-1484.
Sudore RL, Fried TR. Redefining the "planning" in advance care planning: preparing for end-of-life decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(4):256-261.
Moreland P, Najarian MM, Burke CT, et al. A novel approach to quality assurance of the family meeting process in an ICU setting. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(2):137-144.
Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733-742.
Siassakos D, Fox R, Crofts JF, et al. The management of a simulated emergency: better teamwork, better performance. Resuscitation. 2011;82(2):203-206.
Lynn J, Goldstein NE. Advance care planning for fatal chronic illness: avoiding commonplace errors and unwarranted suffering. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(10):812-818.
Christakis NA. Death Foretold: Prophecy and Prognosis in Medical Care. University of Chicago Press; 1999.
Blackhall LJ, Frank G, Murphy ST, et al. Ethnicity and attitudes towards life sustaining technology. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(12):1779-1789.
Zhang B, Wright AA, Huskamp HA, et al. Health care costs in the last week of life: associations with end-of-life conversations. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(5):480-488.
Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, et al. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA. 2000;284(19):2476-2482.
Quill TE, Holloway R. Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA. 2011;306(13):1483-1484.
Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267(16):2221-2226.
Pope TM. Legal briefing: medical futility and assisted death. J Clin Ethics. 2017;28(1):22-39.
Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Consensus statement on the triage of critically ill patients. JAMA. 1994;271(15):1200-1203.
Wayne DB, Didwania A, Feinglass J, et al. Simulation-based education improves quality of care during cardiac arrest team responses at an academic teaching hospital: a case-control study. Chest. 2008;133(1):56-61.
Nelson JE, Curtis JR, Mulkerin C, et al. Choosing and using screening criteria for palliative care consultation in the ICU: a report from the improving palliative care in the ICU (IPAL-ICU) Advisory Board. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(10):2318-2327.
Ebell MH, Afonso AM. Pre-arrest predictors of failure to survive after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis. Fam Pract. 2011;28(5):505-515.
Curtis JR, Back AL, Ford DW, et al. Effect of communication skills training for residents and nurse practitioners on quality of communication with patients with serious illness: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310(21):2271-2281.
Teno JM, Fisher ES, Hamel MB, et al. Medical care inconsistent with patients' treatment goals: association with 1-year Medicare resource use and survival. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(3):496-500.