Mechanical Ventilation for Comatose Patients with Inoperative Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Possible Futility of Treatment

BACKGROUND Comatose patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) diagnosed as inoperative due to their severe comorbidity will be treated differently between countries. In certain countries including Japan, aggressive medical care may be performed according to the patients' family requests although the effects on the outcome are obscure. For respiratory distress in comatose patients with inoperative acute ICH, the role of mechanical ventilation on the outcome is unknown. We speculated that the efficacy of a ventilator in such a specific condition is limited and possibly futile. METHODS We retrospectively evaluated the in-hospital mortality and further outcome of 65 comatose patients with inoperative ICH. Among the patients, 56 manifested respiratory distress, and the effect of the ventilator was evaluated by comparing the patients treated with and without the ventilator. RESULTS The in-hospital mortality was calculated as 80%. A statistically significant parameter affecting the mortality independently was the motor subset on the Glasgow Coma Scale (P = 0.015). Among the patients who manifested respiratory distress, 7.7% of patients treated with a ventilator and 14.0% of patients not treated with a ventilator survived; an outcome is not significantly different. The mean survival duration of patients treated with a ventilator was significantly longer than the mean survival duration of patients not treated with a ventilator (P = 0.021). Among the surviving 13 patients, 7 patients died 5 to 29 months after onset without significant consciousness recovery. Another 6 patients suffered continuous disablement due to prolonged severe consciousness disturbances. CONCLUSION The current results indicate that treating comatose patients resulting from inoperative acute ICH may be futile. In particular, treating these patients with a ventilator only has the effect of prolonging unresponsive life, and the treatment may be criticized from the perspective of the appropriate use of public medical resources.