Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in low-middle-income versus high-income Asian countries and regions

Purpose: To compare the attitudes of physicians towards withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units (ICUs) in low-middle-income Asian countries and regions with those in high-income ones, and to explore differences in the role of families and surrogates, legal risks, and financial considerations between these countries and regions. Methods: Questionnaire study conducted in May–December 2012 on 847 physicians from 255 ICUs in 10 low-middle-income countries and regions according to the World Bank’s classification, and 618 physicians from 211 ICUs in six high-income countries and regions. Results: After we accounted for personal, ICU, and hospital characteristics on multivariable analyses using generalised linear mixed models, physicians from low-middle-income countries and regions were less likely to limit cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors and inotropes, tracheostomy and haemodialysis than those from high-income countries and regions. They were more likely to involve families in end-of-life care discussions and to perceive legal risks with limitation of life-sustaining treatments and do-not-resuscitate orders. Nonetheless, they were also more likely to accede to families’ requests to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in a patient with an otherwise reasonable chance of survival on financial grounds in a case scenario (adjusted odds ratio 5.05, 95 % confidence interval 2.69–9.51, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant differences in ICU physicians’ self-reported practice of limiting life-sustaining treatments, the role of families and surrogates, perception of legal risks and financial considerations exist between low-middle-income and high-income Asian countries and regions.