A 56-year-old smoker with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease develops pneumonia and respiratory failure and is placed on mechanical ventilation. He dies 2 weeks later, after a stormy intensive care unit (ICU) course complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding and septic shock. The next morning, the ICU team questions how such a series of events occurred. Although each intervention could be justified as a response to a treatable complication, did the team truly consider the patient's overall prognosis or determine whether he really wanted such aggressive care? See also p 1591. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) intervention described in this issue ofThe Journalattempted to prevent such high-technology deaths.¹The SUPPORT investigators are to be congratulated on a rigorous, complex project. Yet, despite their best efforts in this multicenter randomized clinical trial, the intervention failed to improve any of the study outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
B. Lo (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: