Key result
Invasive approach linked to ~64% higher 1-year mortality vs conservative care in critically ill elderly.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether an invasive approach is associated with favourable long-term outcomes compared with a conservative approach among elderly medical patients in the intensive care unit.
Does an invasive approach improve 1-year survival in critically ill elderly medical patients compared with a conservative approach?
Observational (n=107,014)
Yes
Does an invasive approach improve 1-year survival in critically ill elderly medical patients compared with a conservative approach?
Among critically ill elderly medical patients, an invasive approach (ventilation/vasopressors) was associated with significantly lower 1-year survival compared to a conservative approach, likely reflecting underlying disease severity and end-of-life trajectories.
May support conservative strategies in elderly ICU patients; leaves open confounding by indication in observational data.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an invasive approach is associated with favourable long-term outcomes among elderly medical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), compared with a conservative approach. DESIGN: Nationwide observational study (OCTO-REVERSE study) using data prospectively collected in the National French Healthcare Database (covering 99% of the population, 66 million people). SETTING: Comprehensive multicentre study through the linkage of large-scale national registries (including all public or private facilities) from 2013 to 2018 to avoid ambiguities related to the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: All non-surgical patients aged 80 years or older admitted to an ICU in France during the period (n=107 014 patients at 822 hospitals). OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was the 1-year survival rate. The association of the two approaches with 1-year survival was estimated using a time-dependent Cox model and a propensity score (PS) adapted to time-to-event analysis, yielding the average treatment effect in the treated and extended weighted Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: 107 014 patients were categorised into two groups based on the type of care received: invasive (n=51 680 (48%) received invasive ventilation and/or vasopressor support) or conservative (n=55 334 (52%) received neither). 1-year survival rate was significantly lower in the invasive group than in the conservative group (27% vs 59% estimated with extended time-dependent Kaplan-Meier method). The risk of death in the invasive group remained significantly higher after time-dependent PS weighting (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.60 to 1.69; p<0.001). The loss in restricted mean survival time was 67.7 days (95% CI 65.7 to 69.8) in this group and 31% of deaths occurred the day of initiation of the procedure, or the following day. CONCLUSION: Among the whole population of critically ill elderly medical patients in France, the invasive approach was unknowingly associated with end-of-life care in nearly three quarters of cases. Further research is needed to align intensive care with compassionate goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leclaire et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Critically ill elderly medical patients (n=107,014). Invasive approach (invasive ventilation and/or vasopressor support) vs. Conservative approach (neither invasive ventilation nor vasopressor support) was evaluated on 1-year survival rate (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.60-1.69, p=<0.001). Among critically ill elderly medical patients, an invasive approach was associated with a significantly higher risk of death at 1 year compared to a conservative approach (HR 1.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: