Publication:
Propensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patients

dc.contributor.authorBernhard Wernlyen_US
dc.contributor.authorRaphael Romano Brunoen_US
dc.contributor.authorFernando Frutos-Vivaren_US
dc.contributor.authorOscar Peñuelasen_US
dc.contributor.authorRichard Rezaren_US
dc.contributor.authorKonstantinos Raymondosen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlfonso Murielen_US
dc.contributor.authorBin Duen_US
dc.contributor.authorArnaud W. Thilleen_US
dc.contributor.authorFernando Ríosen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarco Gonzálezen_US
dc.contributor.authorLorenzo Del-Sorboen_US
dc.contributor.authorMaria Del Carmen Marínen_US
dc.contributor.authorBruno Valle Pinheiroen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarco Antonio Soaresen_US
dc.contributor.authorNicolas Ninen_US
dc.contributor.authorSalvatore M. Maggioreen_US
dc.contributor.authorAndrew Berstenen_US
dc.contributor.authorMalte Kelmen_US
dc.contributor.authorPravin Aminen_US
dc.contributor.authorNahit Cakaren_US
dc.contributor.authorGee Young Suhen_US
dc.contributor.authorFekri Abrougen_US
dc.contributor.authorManuel Jibajaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDimitros Matamisen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmine Ali Zeggwaghen_US
dc.contributor.authorYuda Sutherasanen_US
dc.contributor.authorBertrand Guideten_US
dc.contributor.authorDylan W. De Langeen_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael Beilen_US
dc.contributor.authorSigal Svrien_US
dc.contributor.authorVernon van Heerdenen_US
dc.contributor.authorHans Flaattenen_US
dc.contributor.authorAntonio Anzuetoen_US
dc.contributor.authorVenet Osmanien_US
dc.contributor.authorAndrés Estebanen_US
dc.contributor.authorChristian Jungen_US
dc.contributor.otherRamathibodi Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherSouth Texas Veterans Health Care Systemen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Regional 1° de Octubre ISSSTEen_US
dc.contributor.otherBruno Kessler Foundationen_US
dc.contributor.otherCHU Fattouma-Bourguibaen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity Medical Center Utrechten_US
dc.contributor.otherHaukeland Universitetssjukehusen_US
dc.contributor.otherHeinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorfen_US
dc.contributor.otherMedizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH)en_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Ramon y Cajalen_US
dc.contributor.otherCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiersen_US
dc.contributor.otherSamsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherFlinders Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMohammed V University in Rabaten_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Torontoen_US
dc.contributor.otherParacelsus Medizinische Privatuniversitaten_US
dc.contributor.otherPapageorgiou General Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherİstanbul Tıp Fakültesien_US
dc.contributor.otherBombay Hospital and Medical Research Centreen_US
dc.contributor.otherPeking Union Medical College Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Nacional Professor Dr. Alejandro Posadasen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of G. d'Annunzio Chieti and Pescaraen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Universitario de Getafeen_US
dc.contributor.otherSorbonne Universiteen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidade Federal de Juiz de Foraen_US
dc.contributor.otherHadassah University Medical Centreen_US
dc.contributor.otherClínica Medellín & Universidad Pontificia Bolivari-anaen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Universitario de Montevideoen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital de Especialidades Eugenio Espejoen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Universitario Sao Joseen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:25:12Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:25:12Z
dc.date.issued2021-05-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective anal-ysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65–79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P <.001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P <.001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16–1.49], P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified.en_US
dc.identifier.citationRespiratory Care. Vol.66, No.5 (2021), 814-821en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4187/RESPCARE.08547en_US
dc.identifier.issn19433654en_US
dc.identifier.issn00201324en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85106069446en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/78235
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85106069446&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titlePropensity-adjusted comparison of mortality of elderly versus very elderly ventilated patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85106069446&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections