American Heart Journal
Volume 156, Issue 1 , Pages 78-84, July 2008

Impact of do-not-resuscitation orders on quality of care performance measures in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure

  • Joline L.T. Chen, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Renal Section, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Joline L.T. Chen, MD, MS, Renal Section, Boston University School of Medicine, EBRC Suite 504, 650 Albany St, Boston, MA 02118.
  • ,
  • Jonathan Sosnov, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Miami, FL
  • ,
  • Darleen Lessard, MS

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA
  • ,
  • Robert J. Goldberg, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

Received 18 October 2007; accepted 24 January 2008. published online 14 April 2008.

Background

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among Americans. Despite increased interest in end-of-life care, the implications of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in acutely ill patients with HF remain unclear. The goals of this observational study were to describe the use of DNR orders and their impact on treatment approaches in residents of a large New England metropolitan area hospitalized with acute heart failure.

Methods

Use of HF performance measures, including assessment of left ventricular function, use of angiotensin receptor blocking agents, anticoagulation, smoking cessation counseling, and use of nonpharmacologic strategies, was examined through review of the medical records of 4,537 metropolitan Worcester (MA) residents admitted to 11 central Massachusetts hospitals with acute HF in 1995 and 2000 according to the presence of DNR orders.

Results

Patients with DNR orders were less likely to have had their left ventricular function assessed (31% vs 43%) as well as receive renin-angiotensin system blockade (49% vs 57%), anticoagulation (65% vs 78%), or nonpharmacologic interventions (87% vs 92%) as compared to patients without DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders were significantly less likely to have received any quality assurance measure for acute HF (adjusted hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.99) than patients without DNR orders.

Conclusions

The use of quality assurance measures in acute HF is markedly lower in patients with DNR orders. The implications of DNR orders need to be further clarified in the treatment of patients with acute HF.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This research was made possible by the cooperation of the medical records, administration, and cardiology departments of participating hospitals in the Worcester metropolitan area and through funding support provided by the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (R37 HL69874).

PII: S0002-8703(08)00134-8

doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2008.01.030

American Heart Journal
Volume 156, Issue 1 , Pages 78-84, July 2008