Gerontology & Geriatrics Studies

Beyond Survival: Therapeutic Proportionality in the Critically Ill Older Adult

Pedro Jorge Lopes*

Portugal & Jean Piaget School of Health Sciences of the Algarve, Jean Piaget Polytechnic Institute of the South, Portugal

*Corresponding author:Pedro Jorge Gamito Lopes, Medical-Surgical Emergency Service, Litoral Alentejano Local Health Unit, Portugal & Jean Piaget School of Health Sciences of the Algarve, Jean Piaget Polytechnic Institute of the South, Silves, Portugal

Submission: September 21, 2026; Published: October 30, 2026

DOI: 10.31031/GGS.2026.10.000738

ISSN 2578-0093
Volume10 Issue 3

Modern critical care can sustain failing organs with a precision that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Yet in critically ill older adults, technical success and clinical success are not always synonymous. A recent editorial on the limits of intervention in the critically ill older patient appropriately centered the dilemma on the tension between technological possibility, clinical judgment, and dignity [1]. The next step is to make that tension clinically actionable. The relevant question is not simply whether an intervention can prolong life, but whether its expected benefits remain proportionate to its burdens and to the probability of achieving an outcome the patient would regard as meaningful.

Chronological age is an administratively convenient variable, but it is a poor substitute for biological reserve, functional status, cognition, frailty, or the reversibility of acute illness. Treating age itself as a threshold for intensive care risks reproducing a form of institutional ageism that is already documented across health care [2]. The opposite error is equally problematic: assuming that access to every available life-sustaining intervention is inherently beneficial simply because the intervention is technically feasible. Frailty offers clinically relevant information that chronological age alone cannot provide, but it must not become a new categorical gatekeeper. In an individual patient-data meta-analysis of 23,989 acutely admitted ICU patients, frailty measured with the Clinical Frailty Scale was independently associated with ICU mortality in older adults after adjustment for illness severity [3]. That association is prognostic, not determinative. A frailty score should therefore inform clinical reasoning, communication, and risk stratification; it should not function as a stand-alone decision to admit, withhold, continue, or withdraw intensive treatment.

Survival remains a fundamental outcome of critical care, but it is an incomplete measure of benefit. For older adults, the consequences of critical illness extend beyond hospital discharge and may include new dependence, cognitive impairment, reduced mobility, persistent symptoms, and changes in living arrangements. Studies of critically ill older populations increasingly incorporate activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and functional independence alongside mortality [4,5]. This shift matters because two patients who both survive an ICU admission may experience profoundly different recoveries.

Meaningful recovery cannot be defined universally by clinicians. For one person, survival with substantial physical dependency may be entirely acceptable if cognition and communication are preserved; for another, loss of independence may be an outcome they would not choose to endure for a small probability of prolonged survival. The purpose of discussing functional trajectory is therefore not to assign an external value to a life with disability. It is to understand which outcomes are acceptable to the individual patient and to incorporate that information into treatment decisions. Prognosis should describe possible trajectories, not prescribe whose life is worth sustaining.

Therapeutic proportionality provides a more useful framework than either “do everything” or premature limitation of treatment. Proportionality asks whether the expected benefit of an intervention is reasonable in relation to its physiological burden, complications, discomfort, loss of function, and the likelihood of achieving the patient’s goals. This assessment is dynamic. An intervention that is proportionate during the first hours of a potentially reversible crisis may become disproportionate when organ failure progresses despite maximal treatment and the probability of an acceptable recovery change. This is also why the language of “futility” should be used sparingly. Mult society guidance recommends distinguishing treatments that cannot accomplish their physiological purpose from treatments that may have some physiological effect but are judged potentially inappropriate because the broader goals of treatment are unlikely to be achieved [6]. That distinction is especially important in older adults, in whom prognostic uncertainty can be substantial and value judgments can be mistaken for clinical facts.

When prognosis is uncertain but a potentially reversible pathway exists, a time-limited trial of intensive treatment can provide a disciplined alternative to both indefinite escalation and immediate limitation. The American Thoracic Society defines a time-limited trial as a collaborative plan to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined period, followed by reassessment of the patient’s response and reconsideration of the treatment plan [7]. In a multicenter quality-improvement study, implementation of structured time-limited trials was associated with shorter ICU stays and fewer invasive procedures among patients with advanced illness, without significant changes in hospital mortality or family satisfaction [8]. The central requirement is not simply “trying treatment for a few days,” but agreeing in advance on the purpose of treatment, measurable markers of improvement or deterioration, and what will happen if those markers are not achieved.

Proportional care cannot be derived from physiology alone. Shared decision-making brings together the best available clinical evidence with the patient’s values, goals, and preferences and is specifically recommended for major value-sensitive decisions in the ICU [9]. When a patient retains decision-making capacity, that patient remains the primary participant in decisions. When capacity is absent, surrogates should be supported in representing the patients previously expressed wishes and values rather than being asked what they personally want clinicians to do. This process also requires interprofessional coherence. Patients and families should not receive fragmented messages from different members of the team. Interprofessional shared decision-making has been proposed as a structured approach to exchanging information, deliberating, and reaching balanced treatment decisions across disciplines [10]. In practice, proportionality is strongest when geriatric, intensive care, nursing, palliative care, and other relevant perspectives are integrated early rather than introduced only after conflict or deterioration.

Nurses occupy a distinctive position in this process because they continuously observe the patient’s response to treatment, symptom burden, communication, functional changes, and interactions with family members. Their contribution is not to determine treatment ceilings independently, but to bring clinically relevant bedside knowledge into deliberation and to help ensure that expressed patient preferences remain visible as treatment intensity changes. A qualitative systematic review found that critical care nurses contribute to withdrawal-of-treatment decision processes by safeguarding patients’ needs and wishes, supporting families, and coordinating communication [11].

This role is particularly relevant when there is discordance between the stated goals of care and the lived reality of treatment. Repeated distress during procedures, progressive loss of interaction, escalating organ support, or family uncertainty may not independently justify treatment limitation, but they are clinically relevant observations that should trigger reassessment. Nursing surveillance therefore contributes not only to detecting physiological deterioration but also to recognizing when the benefit-burden relationship of treatment may have changed.

Good critical care for older adults is not defined by maximal intervention, and it is not defined by therapeutic restraint based on age. It is defined by disciplined individualization. Severity and reversibility of acute illness, frailty, baseline function and cognition, physiological reserve, expected treatment burden, and possible recovery trajectories must be interpreted alongside what matters to the person receiving care. The aim is neither to prolong life at any cost nor to withdraw treatment because recovery may be difficult. It is to pursue treatments whose expected benefits remain proportionate to their burdens and aligned with the patient’s goals. The most consequential question in geriatric critical care is therefore not whether medicine can sustain life, but whether the treatment being offered still serves the life this particular person would choose to sustain. Technical possibility sets the boundaries of what can be done; clinical judgment, evidence, and the patient’s values should determine what ought to be done.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

1. Marques MDC (2026) The limits of intervention in the critically ill older patient. Rev Ibero-Am Saude Envelhecimento 12(2): 3-4.
2. World Health Organization (2021) Global report on ageism. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
3. Bruno RR, Wernly B, Bagshaw SM, van den Boogaard M, Darvall JN, et al. (2023) The Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality prediction of old acutely admitted intensive care patients: A meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. Ann Intensive Care 13(1): 37.
4. Thietart S, Boumendil A, Pateron D, Guidet B, Vallet H (2022) Impact on 6-month outcomes of hospital trajectory in critically ill older patients: Analysis of the ICE-CUB2 clinical trial. Ann Intensive Care 12(1): 65.
5. Cobert J, Jeon SY, Boscardin J, Chapman AC, Espejo E, et al. (2024) Resilience, survival, and functional independence in older adults facing critical illness. Chest 166(6): 1431-1441.
6. Bosslet GT, Pope TM, Rubenfeld GD, Lo B, Truog RD, et al. (2015) An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 191(11): 1318-1330.
7. Kruser JM, Ashana DC, Courtright KR, Kross EK, Neville TH, et al. (2024) Defining the time-limited trial for patients with critical illness: An official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report. Ann Am Thorac Soc 21(2): 187-199
8. Chang DW, Neville TH, Parrish J, Ewing L, Rico C, et al. (2021) Evaluation of time-limited trials among critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses and reduction of nonbeneficial ICU treatments. JAMA Intern Med 181(6): 786-794.
9. Kon AA, Davidson JE, Morrison W, Danis M, White DB (2016) Shared decision making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Crit Care Med 44(1): 188-201.
10. Michalsen A, Long AC, DeKeyser Ganz F, White DB, Jensen HI, et al. (2019) Interprofessional shared decision-making in the ICU: A systematic review and recommendations from an expert panel. Crit Care Med 47(9): 1258-1266.
11. Heradstveit SH, Larsen MH, Solberg MT, Steindal SA (2023) Critical care nurses’ role in the decision-making process of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: A qualitative systematic review. J Clin Nurs 32(17-18): 6012-6027.