4.6 Article

Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care for Hospitalized Individuals with Cancer with and without Dementia: A Nationwide Matched-Cohort Study in France

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 64, 期 9, 页码 1851-1857

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14363

关键词

end-of-life care; palliative care; cancer; older people

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council (Forte)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To compare the aggressiveness of end-of-life care in hospitalized individuals with cancer with and without dementia in France. DESIGN: Nationwide register-based matched-cohort study. SETTING: Hospital facilities in France. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals with cancer aged 65 and older with a diagnosis of dementia who died between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013, matched one-to-one with individuals with cancer without dementia (n = 26,782 matched pairs). RESULTS: Older individuals with cancer with dementia were less likely to receive aggressive treatment in their last month of life than those who were not diagnosed with dementia. Dementia was associated with a significant decrease in the receipt of chemotherapy (2.8% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.001, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.36) during the last month before death. Individuals with dementia were also less likely to receive radiation therapy (aOR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.43-0.56), blood transfusions (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.64-0.70), artificial nutrition (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.73-0.85), and invasive ventilation (aOR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.57-0.68), although they were more likely to remain hospitalized over their entire last month of life (aOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.37-1.48) and to have more than one emergency department visit (aOR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.12-1.34). CONCLUSION: Older hospitalized adults with cancer with dementia are less likely to receive aggressive cancer treatment near the end of life than those without dementia. This discrepancy raises important ethical questions for clinicians and healthcare policy-makers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据