Bernhard WernlyRaphael Romano BrunoFernando Frutos-VivarOscar PeñuelasRichard RezarKonstantinos RaymondosAlfonso MurielBin DuArnaud W. ThilleFernando RíosMarco GonzálezLorenzo Del-SorboMaria Del Carmen MarínBruno Valle PinheiroMarco Antonio SoaresNicolas NinSalvatore M. MaggioreAndrew BerstenMalte KelmPravin AminNahit CakarGee Young SuhFekri AbrougManuel JibajaDimitros MatamisAmine Ali ZeggwaghYuda SutherasanBertrand GuidetDylan W. De LangeMichael BeilSigal SvriVernon van HeerdenHans FlaattenAntonio AnzuetoVenet OsmaniAndrés EstebanChristian JungRamathibodi HospitalSouth Texas Veterans Health Care SystemHospital Regional 1° de Octubre ISSSTEBruno Kessler FoundationCHU Fattouma-BourguibaUniversity Medical Center UtrechtHaukeland UniversitetssjukehusHeinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfMedizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH)Hospital Ramon y CajalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de PoitiersSamsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan UniversityFlinders UniversityMohammed V University in RabatUniversity of TorontoParacelsus Medizinische PrivatuniversitatPapageorgiou General Hospitalİstanbul Tıp FakültesiBombay Hospital and Medical Research CentrePeking Union Medical College HospitalHospital Nacional Professor Dr. Alejandro PosadasUniversity of G. d'Annunzio Chieti and PescaraHospital Universitario de GetafeSorbonne UniversiteUniversidade Federal de Juiz de ForaHadassah University Medical CentreClínica Medellín &amp; Universidad Pontificia Bolivari-anaHospital Universitario de MontevideoHospital de Especialidades Eugenio EspejoHospital Universitario Sao Jose2022-08-042022-08-042021-05-01Respiratory Care. Vol.66, No.5 (2021), 814-82119433654002013242-s2.0-85106069446https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/78235BACKGROUND: 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.Mahidol UniversityMedicineArticleSCOPUS10.4187/RESPCARE.08547