Skip to main content
Download PDF

Characteristics, management and outcomes of critically ill patients who are 80 years and older: a retrospective comparative cohort study

BMC Anesthesiology volume 14, Article number: 126 (2014) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Older age is associated with chronic illnesses and disability, which contribute to increased admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Our primary objective was to compare the characteristics, ICU management and outcomes of critically ill patients ≥ 80 year-old with those of younger patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a tertiary-care ICU from 1999 to 2011. The characteristics, ICU management and outcomes of patients ≥ 80 year-old were compared with those 50–64.9 and 65–79.9 year-old. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted risk of Do-Not-Resuscitate orders and hospital mortality in patients ≥ 80 year-old compared with the younger groups.

Results

During the study period, patients aged ≥ 80 years (N = 748) represented 7.9% of all ICU admissions and 12.8% of patients aged ≥ 50 years. Chronic cardiac (32.2%) and respiratory (21.8%) diseases were more prevalent in them than the younger groups (p < 0.0001). The most common reasons for their ICU admission were cardiovascular (30.9%) and respiratory (40.4%) conditions. Sepsis was commonly present in them on admission (32.9%). Mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy were commonly provided (76.9% and 16.0%, respectively). During ICU stay, Do-Not-Resuscitate orders were more frequently written for patients aged ≥ 80 years (35.0%) compared with 21.9% for 50–64.9 year-old group, p < 0.0001, and 25.4% for the 60–79.9 year-old group, p < 0.0001. On multivariate analysis, patients aged ≥ 80 years were more likely to receive these order compared with the 50–64.9 year-old patients (adjusted OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.45-2.31) and the 65–80 year-old patients (adjusted OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.04). The hospital mortality increased gradually with age and was highest (54.6%) in patients ≥ 80 year-old (p < 0.0001). Patients ≥ 80 year-old had higher risk of hospital mortality compared with patients aged 50–64.9 years (adjusted OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.73-2.69) and with those aged 65–79.9 years (adjusted OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.23-1.86).

Conclusions

Patients ≥ 80 year-old represented a significant proportion of ICU admissions. Although they received life sustaining measures similar to younger groups, they had higher adjusted mortality risk compared with the younger groups.

Peer Review reports

Background

Old age is associated with chronic medical diseases and functional impairment, which may lead to increased incidence and severity of acute critical illnesses and to admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). For severe sepsis, the incidence generally increases with age during adulthood [1]. Incidence of hospitalization secondary to community-acquired pneumonia doubles in patients aged > 60 years [2]. A study from the United Kingdom found that the ratio of ICU admissions to local population in people ≥ 60 years rose linearly by 2.62 admissions per 10,000 population per year over a six consecutive year-period with the increase being highest in patients ≥ 80 years [3].

Rationing health care based upon age has been reported. In a systematic review, Sinuf et al. studied rationing of ICU resources and found that age and severity of illness were most strongly associated with a refusal to admit to the ICU [4]. A recent prospective cohort study of patients > 85 year-old presenting to the emergency departments of 15 Parisian hospitals found significant variability in ICU admission even after adjustment for patient characteristics [4]. This was likely related to the belief that older age was associated with poor outcomes after ICU admission [5]. This issue has been investigated in multiple studies mostly from Western countries [6–8]. However, it is also believed that age explains only a small part of the outcomes of critical illness and that prior functional status, co-morbidities and the level of therapeutic support are important factors [9].

Knowing the outcomes and prognosis determinants of patients aged ≥ 80 years who are admitted to the ICU is important for clarification of perceptions of intensive care providers and possibly for proper allocation of resources. The objectives of this study were to describe the characteristics, management and outcomes of critically ill patients ≥ 80 year-old and to determine if age ≥ 80 years was an independent predictor of ICU management and of hospital mortality in a tertiary-care center in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

Patients and setting

This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort of adult patients admitted between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2011 to the ICU of King Abdulaziz Medical City, a 900-bed tertiary-care teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that had been accredited by the Joint Commission International. The ICU was a 21-bed medical-surgical closed unit and was staffed by board-certified critical care physicians on a 24 hours per days, 7 days a week basis [10] with residents from different specialties rotating periodically. In this study, we compared patients ≥ 80 year-old with those 50–64.9 and 65–79.9 year-old because the younger patients (< 50 year-old) were thought to have completely different comorbid conditions, reasons for ICU admission and end-of-life care. For patients who had multiple ICU admissions in the same hospitalization, we included only the first ICU admission. The Institutional Review Board of King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia approved this study, granted waiver of consent and allowed the review of the patients’ medical records.

Collected data

Our Intensive Care Department had a comprehensive database in which trained coordinators prospectively collected demographic and clinical data and followed patients for predefined outcomes. The following data were extracted from the database: age, gender, body mass index, functional status before hospitalization based on the modified Rankin Scale [11], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score [12], the presence of chronic health illnesses as defined by APACHE II system, the main reason for ICU admission (as per APACHE II definitions), presence of sepsis on admission, diagnosis of the following on ICU admission: myocardial ischemia such as acute coronary syndrome and acute myocardial infarction, community- or hospital-acquired pneumonia and new stroke, admission Glasgow Coma Scale score and admission platelet count, creatinine, lactate, bilirubin and International Normalized Ratio (INR).

We also noted the following ICU management aspects: use of vasopressors within the first 24 hours after ICU admission, requirement for mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy and tracheostomy during ICU stay, performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest while in the ICU and the practice of Do-Not-Resuscitate orders. During the study period, advanced directives were not practiced in Saudi Arabia. However, our hospital had a policy in which a Do-Not-Resuscitate order can be written if three qualified physicians agreed that a patient would not benefit from cardiopulmonary resuscitation in case of cardiac arrest because of he/she was terminally ill or had a severe illness with high predicted mortality, especially if significant functional disability and/or dementia preexisted. This medical decision would be then explained to the patient or surrogate decision maker who generally had to agree before its implementation. His or her signature was not required. Do-Not-Resuscitate orders generally precluded intubation but not the use of noninvasive ventilation.

In this study, hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Other outcomes included ICU and post-ICU discharge mortality, length of stay in the ICU and hospital and duration of mechanical ventilation. We also calculated the predicted mortality based on the Mortality Probability Model (MPM) II at 0 and 24 hours [13] and on APACHE II score for the three age groups.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Analysis System (SAS, version 9.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviations and if clinically relevant as medians with the first and third quartiles. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies with percentages. The standardized mortality ratio for APACHE II was calculated for each group by dividing the actual by predicted hospital mortality and reported with its 95% confidence intervals (CI) [14]. The Chi-squared test was used to assess the differences between categorical variables and the Student’s t-test to assess the differences between continuous variables. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate older patients’ adjusted risk of hospital mortality, having a Do-Not-Resuscitate order during ICU stay and need for renal replacement therapy. The association between hospital mortality and age was also evaluated in patients admitted to the ICU because of cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, other medical, trauma-related and postoperative reasons and in patients with the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia, community- or hospital-acquired pneumonia and new stroke on ICU admission. Multivariate analysis was also performed to determine the predictors of hospital mortality in patients ≥ 80 year-old. The independent variables entered in these analyses were gender, nonage-related APACHE II score, the main reason for admission, chronic illnesses, functional status before hospitalization (moderately severe or severe disability versus more active status), mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, creatinine and INR. The results were presented as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% CIs. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in all analyses.

Results

Characteristics of patients

During the 13 year study period, 9493 patients were admitted to the ICU. The patients aged ≥ 80 years (N = 748) represented 7.9% of them and 12.8% of the 5832 patients who were 50 years and older. Their mean age was 85.1 ± 4.9 years (Q1-Q3: 81–88 years). Figure 1A describes the age distribution of the cohort according to gender. Men aged ≥ 80 years accounted for 8.1% of admitted men and women aged ≥ 80 years 7.6% of admitted women. Figure 1B describes the percentages of patients aged ≥ 80 years admitted from 1999 to 2011 and shows random variation between years. Additionally, Table 1 describes the characteristic of the three age groups. The oldest (≥80 year-old) patients were predominantly males (64.2%) with APACHE II score = 27.2 ± 8.2. Chronic cardiac (32.2%) and respiratory (21.8%) diseases were more prevalent in them than in the younger groups (p < 0.0001). More patients aged ≥ 80 years had moderate or severe physical disability before hospitalization as assessed by the modified Rankin Scale. Disorders of the respiratory (40.4%) and cardiovascular (30.9%) systems were their most common reasons for admission to the ICU. Sepsis was present on admission in 32.9%, the highest among the groups (p < 0.0001). Myocardial ischemia, community-acquired pneumonia and new stroke on admission were also more prevalent.

Figure 1
figure 1

Cohort description. Panel A: Age distribution by decades of the cohort according to gender. Panel B: Percentages of patients aged ≥ 80 years old of all patients and of patients ≥ 50 years old admitted to the intensive care unit per admission year.

Full size image
Table 1 Patient characteristics
Full size table

Intensive care unit management

Table 2 describes certain aspects of ICU management for the three age groups. Use of vasopressors was similar in patients aged ≥ 80 years compared with the two younger groups. Patients aged ≥ 80 years had the highest rate of mechanical ventilation (76.9%) and the lowest rate of renal replacement therapy (16.0%). Multivariate analysis showed that the OR for providing renal replacement therapy was not different in patients aged > 80 years compared to 50–65 year-old patients (aOR, 0.824; 95% CI, 0.613-1.107) and 60–79.9 year old patients (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65-1.15). Tracheostomy was performed more frequently in patients aged ≥ 80 years even though there was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation among the three groups.

Table 2 Intensive care unit management
Full size table

Figure 2 describes the percentages of patients in the different age groups who had Do-Not-Resuscitate orders during their ICU stay. Do-Not-Resuscitate orders were more frequently written for patients aged ≥ 80 years (35.0%) compared with 21.9% for 50–64.9 year-old group, p < 0.0001, and 25.4% for the 60–79.9 year-old group, p < 0.0001 (Table 2). In addition, Do-Not-Resuscitate orders were written earlier (median day after ICU admission, 3; Q1-Q3: 1–8 days) than for patients < 80 year-old (median, 5; Q1-Q3: 1–10 days for the 50–64.9 year-old and median, 5; Q1-Q3, 1–11 days for the 65–79.9 year-old). After controlling for other factors and compared with patients 50–64.9 years, the practice of Do-Not-Resuscitate orders was similar in patients who were 65–80 year-old (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.98-1.37) but higher for patients aged ≥ 80 years (aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.45-2.31). Additionally, patients aged ≥ 80 years were more likely to have Do-Not-Resuscitate order compared with patients who were 65–80 year-old (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.04).

Figure 2
figure 2

Percentage of patients in the three age groups (50–64.9, 65–79.9 and ≥ 80 year-old) who had Do-Not-Resuscitate order during the stay in the intensive care unit per admission year.

Full size image

Outcomes

Table 3 describes the outcomes of the patient groups. The lengths of stay in the ICU and hospital were similar in the three groups. Although there was no difference in ICU mortality between the three age groups, hospital mortality increased gradually with age and was highest (54.6%) in patients ≥ 80 years old (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the hospital mortality rates for patients who had Do-Not-Resuscitate order while in the ICU were 92.6% for the younger group, 89.7% for patients aged 65–79.9 years and 85.1% for the very elderly. The mortality rates of patients who had cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest while in the ICU were 82.7% for the younger group, 79.5% for patients aged 65–79.9 years and 80.6% for the very elderly.Figure 3 describes the hospital mortality of the three age groups stratified by the reason of admission and generally shows that the mortality rates increased with age. This was not observed in patients admitted to the ICU because of hospital acquired pneumonia and neurologic disease. After adjusting for imbalances in the baseline characteristics, patients ≥ 80 year-old had higher risk of hospital mortality compared to patients aged 50–64.9 years (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.73-2.69) and those aged 65–79.9 (aOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.23-1.86). This increased risk was not observed in patients with ICU admission because of neurologic disorders, new stroke or hospital-acquired pneumonia (Figure 3).

Table 3 Outcomes of patients in the three age groups
Full size table
Figure 3
figure 3

Mortality rates of patients aged 50–64.9, 65–79.9 and ≥ 80 years stratified by various reasons for admission to the intensive care unit.

Full size image

Predictors of hospital mortality in patients who were 80 years or older were invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.96-4.90), chronic renal disease (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.05-2.90), non-age APACHE II score (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10) and length of ICU stay (OR, 1.04 per one day increment; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07).

Discussion

The main findings of this study were the following: patients aged ≥ 80 years represented a significant portion of patients admitted to the ICU; had significant comorbid conditions; were admitted mainly because of acute dysfunction of the cardiac and respiratory systems; and compared with the younger groups, received similar life sustaining treatments but were more likely to have Do-Not-Resuscitate orders and to die in the hospital than the younger groups.

The age structure of the world population has shifted and will continue to do so with the proportion of old people increasing in both developed and developing countries [15]. In parallel with this shift, more old patients are admitted to ICU. In Australia and New Zealand, the proportion of patients aged > 80 years was 13% of the adult ICU population and increased by 5.6% between 2000 and 2005 [16]. In Denmark, a study of 49,938 ICU admissions found that the proportion of patients aged ≥ 80 years increased from 11.7% of all ICU patients in 2005 to 13.8% in 2011 [17]. In the current study, patients aged ≥ 80 years constituted 7.9% of all patients admitted to the ICU between 1999 and 2011 and 12.8% of patients ≥ 50 year-old, with the proportion of admissions generally showing random variation from year to year. These findings are different than other studies [16, 17] likely because the Saudi population is much younger than those of developed countries. In 2011, people aged ≥ 80 years represented 0.6% of the population compared with 3.8% in Australia, 4.2% in Denmark and 3.8% in the United States [18].

Physicians frequently consider old age when deciding on the provision of life-sustaining measures. An observational simulation study found that 86, 78 and 62% of participating physicians (predominantly males without religious beliefs; median ICU experience = 9 years) felt that noninvasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy was warranted, respectively for patients aged ≥ 80 years [19]. On multivariate analysis, age < 85 years, self-sufficiency and bed availability were associated with ICU admission [19]. In a systematic review of 10 observational studies of seriously ill patients considered for ICU admission during periods of reduced bed availability, Sinuff et al. found that age and severity of illness were most strongly associated with a refusal to admit to the ICU [4]. A recent prospective study of patients > 85 years presenting to the emergency departments of 15 Parisian hospitals found significant variability in ICU admission even after adjustment for patients’ characteristics [5]. The geographic variation in ICU use for patients ≥ 85 years old was also seen in another study where it was less common in England (1.3%) than the United States (11.0%) [20]. In the current study, we have observed that patients aged ≥ 80 years were frequently provided with life support measures, such as mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy, like younger patients. However, age ≥ 80 years was found to be an independent risk factor for the practice of Do-Not-Resuscitate orders after controlling for co-morbid conditions.

Low physiological reserve and comorbidities often place very old people in a situation of greater complexity, which may impact outcome. However, it is thought that they have lived to that age because they are resilient to acute illnesses. Studies generally show higher critical illness-associated mortality in the old and very old patients. A study that classified patients into 75–79, 80–84 and ≥ 85 year age groups found that age was not associated with ICU mortality, but with long-term mortality (aOR: 2.17, for patients ≥ 85 years old and 1.82, for patients 80–84 years old) [6]. Another study found that patients aged 75–84 and ≥ 85 year-old had aORs of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.59) and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81), respectively for 28-day mortality as compared with the 65–74 year-age group [7]. A secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing the effects of dopamine and norepinephrine in patients with shock found that the mortality rates were higher in the old (75–84 years) and very old (≥ 85 years) patients at 28 days, at hospital discharge, and after 6 and 12 months [21]. Most very old patients were dead at 6 (92%) and 12 months (97%) with mortality rates increasing with age in all types of shock [21]. A retrospective Norwegian cohort study (n = 27,921) found that the hospital mortality was 21.4% in patients aged 50–79.9 years and 32.4% in patients aged > 80 years, who also received less mechanical ventilation (40.6% versus 56.1%) and had shorter median ventilatory support time (0.8 days versus 1.9 days) [22]. The mortality of the very elderly patients may be affected by admission type. A retrospective cohort study that the 30-day mortality of elderly patients (≥ 80 years) was 43.7% in medical, 39.6% in acute surgical, and 11.6% in elective surgical ICU patients with a corresponding adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratios compared with the 50–64 year-old patients were 2.7 (95% CI, 2.5-3.0) in medical, 2.7 (95% CI, 2.4-3.0) in acute surgical and 5.2 (95% CI, 4.1-6.6) in elective surgical ICU patients [17]. The adjusted mortality rate ratios for 31-365-day mortality among elderly patients were 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-2.9) for medical, 2.2 (95% CI 1.9-2.5) for acute surgical and 1.9 (95% CI, 1.6-2.3) for elective surgical ICU patients [17]. A study that used Project IMPACT data for 124,885 patients treated from 2001 to 2004 found that mortality rates approximately doubled in the elective surgical group among patients aged in their 70s (2.4%), 80s (4.3%), and 90s (9.2%) but rose less dramatically in the medical group (27.0%, 30.7%, and 36.0%, respectively) [8]. Old age (> 65 years) has been associated with increased community-acquired pneumonia mortality [23] and ARDS mortality (OR per additional 10 year, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50) [24]. In the current study, the ICU mortality was similar in the three age groups, but the hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 80 years having a higher adjusted mortality risk compared to younger age groups (50–64.9 and 65–79.9 years). This was observed in different admission types, except for admissions due to neurologic disease and hospital-acquired pneumonia. This could be because patients aged ≥ 80 years had high prevalence of chronic illnesses and functional disability in our study.

The findings of this study should be interpreted in the light of its strengths and limitations. Strengths include the large sample size. Limitations include being a monocenter study and lack of data on post-ICU care processes, which may have affected hospital outcome, and on long-term outcomes such as cognitive function and disability. Critical illness in old people has been associated with decline in cognitive function. Analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of 2929 individuals ≥ 65 year-old without dementia showed that adjusted hazard ratio for incident dementia was 1.4 following a noncritical illness hospitalization (95% CI, 1.1-1.7; p = 0.001) and 2.3 following a critical illness hospitalization (95% CI, 0.9-5.7; p = 0.09) [25]. This may be one of the reasons for increased mortality after ICU discharge.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we have found that patients aged ≥ 80 years accounted for a significant proportion of patients admitted to a tertiary-care ICU in Saudi Arabia. However, their proportion was lower than those of developed countries likely due to the younger Saudi population. The treating intensivists supported them with life sustaining interventions, such as mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy, similar to younger groups, but the Do-Not-Resuscitate practice was more common in them. More than half of them died in the hospital with age ≥ 80 years being an independent risk factor for hospital mortality.

Key messages

  • Patients aged ≥ 80 years represented a significant portion of ICU admissions (7.9% of all admissions and 12.8% of patients aged ≥ 50 years).

  • They received life support measures such as mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy similar to younger patients. However, they had higher frequency of Do-Not-Resuscitate orders.

  • Patients aged > 80 years had higher hospital mortality than the younger patients mostly after ICU discharge.

  • Age ≥ 80 years was associated with almost 2 times increase in the adjusted hospital mortality risk compared with age 50-64.9 years.

Abbreviations

APACHE:

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

CI:

Confidence interval

ICU:

Intensive care unit

INR:

International Normalized Ratio

MPM:

Mortality Probability Model

OR:

Odds ratio.

References

  1. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR: Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001, 29 (7): 1303-1310. 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ewig S, Birkner N, Strauss R, Schaefer E, Pauletzki J, Bischoff H, Schraeder P, Welte T, Hoeffken G: New perspectives on community-acquired pneumonia in 388 406 patients. Results from a nationwide mandatory performance measurement programme in healthcare quality. Thorax. 2009, 64 (12): 1062-1069. 10.1136/thx.2008.109785.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sparkes DJ, Smith GB, Prytherch D: Intensive care requirements for an ageing population–a microcosm of problems facing the NHS?. Clin Med. 2004, 4 (3): 263-266. 10.7861/clinmedicine.4-3-263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sinuff T, Kahnamoui K, Cook DJ, Luce JM, Levy MM: Rationing critical care beds: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2004, 32 (7): 1588-1597. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000130175.38521.9F.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boumendil A, Angus DC, Guitonneau AL, Menn AM, Ginsburg C, Takun K, Davido A, Masmoudi R, Doumenc B, Pateron D, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Somme D, Simon T, Aegerter P, Guidet B, ICE-CUB study group: Variability of intensive care admission decisions for the very elderly. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (4): e34387-10.1371/journal.pone.0034387.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Somme D, Maillet JM, Gisselbrecht M, Novara A, Ract C, Fagon JY: Critically ill old and the oldest-old patients in intensive care: short- and long-term outcomes. Intensive Care Med. 2003, 29 (12): 2137-2143. 10.1007/s00134-003-1929-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fuchs L, Chronaki CE, Park S, Novack V, Baumfeld Y, Scott D, McLennan S, Talmor D, Celi L: ICU admission characteristics and mortality rates among elderly and very elderly patients. Intensive Care Med. 2012, 38 (10): 1654-1661. 10.1007/s00134-012-2629-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nathanson BH, Higgins TL, Brennan MJ, Kramer AA, Stark M, Teres D: Do elderly patients fare well in the ICU?. Chest. 2011, 139 (4): 825-831. 10.1378/chest.10-1233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boumendil A, Somme D, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Guidet B: Should elderly patients be admitted to the intensive care unit?. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33 (7): 1252-1262. 10.1007/s00134-007-0621-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arabi Y, Alshimemeri A, Taher S: Weekend and weeknight admissions have the same outcome of weekday admissions to an intensive care unit with onsite intensivist coverage. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34 (3): 605-611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J: Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1999, 30 (8): 1538-1541. 10.1161/01.STR.30.8.1538.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985, 13 (10): 818-829. 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin JS, Gehlbach SH, Rapoport J: Mortality Probability Models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA. 1993, 270 (20): 2478-2486. 10.1001/jama.1993.03510200084037.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldhill DR, Sumner A: Outcome of intensive care patients in a group of British intensive care units. Crit Care Med. 1998, 26 (8): 1337-1345. 10.1097/00003246-199808000-00017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lutz W, Sanderson W, Scherbov S: The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature. 2008, 451 (7179): 716-719. 10.1038/nature06516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bagshaw SM, Webb SA, Delaney A, George C, Pilcher D, Hart GK, Bellomo R: Very old patients admitted to intensive care in Australia and New Zealand: a multi-centre cohort analysis. Crit Care. 2009, 13 (2): R45-10.1186/cc7768.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Nielsson MS, Christiansen CF, Johansen MB, Rasmussen BS, Tonnesen E, Norgaard M: Mortality in elderly ICU patients: a cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014, 58 (1): 19-26. 10.1111/aas.12211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables. ST/ESA/SER.A/313. In. 2011

    Google Scholar 

  19. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Tabah A, Vesin A, Philippart F, Kpodji A, Bruel C, Gregoire C, Max A, Timsit JF, Misset B: The ETHICA study (part II): simulation study of determinants and variability of ICU physician decisions in patients aged 80 or over. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39 (9): 1574-1583. 10.1007/s00134-013-2977-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wunsch H, Linde-Zwirble WT, Harrison DA, Barnato AE, Rowan KM, Angus DC: Use of intensive care services during terminal hospitalizations in England and the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009, 180 (9): 875-880. 10.1164/rccm.200902-0201OC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Biston P, Aldecoa C, Devriendt J, Madl C, Chochrad D, Vincent JL, De Backer D: Outcome of elderly patients with circulatory failure. Intensive Care Med. 2014, 40 (1): 50-56. 10.1007/s00134-013-3121-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Andersen FH, Kvale R: Do elderly intensive care unit patients receive less intensive care treatment and have higher mortality?. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012, 56 (10): 1298-1305. 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2012.02782.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, Bartlett JG, Campbell GD, Dean NC, Dowell SF, File TM, Musher DM, Niederman MS, Torres A, Whitney CG, Infectious Diseases Society of America; American Thoracic Society: Infectious diseases society of America/American thoracic society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007, 44 (Suppl 2): S27-S72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Phua J, Badia JR, Adhikari NK, Friedrich JO, Fowler RA, Singh JM, Scales DC, Stather DR, Li A, Jones A, Gattas DJ, Hallett D, Tomlinson G, Stewart TE, Ferguson ND: Has mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome decreased over time?: A systematic review. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009, 179 (3): 220-227. 10.1164/rccm.200805-722OC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ehlenbach WJ, Hough CL, Crane PK, Haneuse SJ, Carson SS, Curtis JR, Larson EB: Association between acute care and critical illness hospitalization and cognitive function in older adults. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 2010, 303 (8): 763-770. 10.1001/jama.2010.167.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Pre-publication history

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and Intensive Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, 11426, Saudi Arabia

    Hasan M Al-Dorzi

  2. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, 11426, Saudi Arabia

    Hani M Tamim

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut-Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon

    Hani M Tamim

  4. Intensive Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, 11426, Saudi Arabia

    Shihab Mundekkadan

  5. Intensive Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Muhammad R Sohail

  6. College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, PO Box 22490, Mail code 1425, Riyadh, 11426, Saudi Arabia

    Yaseen M Arabi

Authors
  1. Hasan M Al-Dorzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hani M Tamim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shihab Mundekkadan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammad R Sohail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yaseen M Arabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaseen M Arabi.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

HMD: Conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final version to be published. HMT: Statistical analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final version to be published. SM: Data collection, interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final version to be published. MRS: Data collection, interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final version to be published. YMA: Conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Dorzi, H.M., Tamim, H.M., Mundekkadan, S. et al. Characteristics, management and outcomes of critically ill patients who are 80 years and older: a retrospective comparative cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol 14, 126 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-14-126

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-14-126

Keywords

  • Aged 80 and over
  • Critical illness
  • Health outcome
  • Mortality

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us