Selective decontamination of the digestive tract and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

P. Baines,H. V. van Saene

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00024

IF: 39.2

2004-10-05

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:TO THE EDITOR: Larson and colleagues (1) concluded that Alzheimer disease significantly reduces survival. They suggested that a clinical evaluation can detect “features associated with prognosis for survival,” and an accompanying editorial (2) also emphasized prognostic implications. Larson and colleagues’ reference to prognosis is juxtaposed with their acknowledgment that they have no reliable data on causes of death in their study sample. Prognosis refers to the “foretelling of the probable course of a disease” (3). In the context of Alzheimer disease, the contrast between “survival” and “prognosis” may be significant. Progressive neurodegeneration requires ongoing decisions about life-sustaining therapies (4, 5). These decisions respond to the trajectory of the underlying disease, but they also reflect the complex values and goals of patients and their surrogates. Decisions and disease are related but independent realities. It would be helpful to know whether Larson and colleagues have data on treatment limitations that preceded death (for example, withholding resuscitation, gastrostomy feeding tubes, or antibiotics). If such information is not available, a more measured interpretation would suggest that the survival data they reported are global: The data presumably tell us about a mixture of biological and social realities rather than the bare natural history of a disease. If we miss this point, our recommendations to patients and their surrogates may risk, at least in part, becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, since decisions to limit some life-supportive treatments will probably shorten survival. I would be interested to hear the authors’ thoughts about how much of the reduced survival they found might be attributable to clinical decisions rather than disease.