LAUSR

e19009 Background: Patients with high-risk AML often experience aggressive medical care at the end of life (EOL) such as hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Despite this, studies examining code status transitions in this population are lacking. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study of 107 patients with high-risk AML enrolled in supportive care studies at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2014-2019. High-risk AML was defined as 1) new diagnosis > 60 years or 2) relapsed/refractory AML. Two physicians used consensus-driven medical record review to characterize code status transitions. Code statuses were coded as ‘full’ (confirmed or presumed), ‘restricted’ (i.e., do not resuscitate), or ‘comfort measures only’ (CMO); confirmations of presumed status were not coded as transitions. Results: At diagnosis of high-risk AML, 91.9% of patients were ‘full code’ (48.5% presumed, 43.4% confirmed) and 8.1% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 55.1% (59/107) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions (range 1-4). Median time from first to last transition was 11 days (range 1-306) and from last transition to death was 1 day (range 0-11). Most of these transitions (79.6%; 48/59) were transitions to CMO near EOL. We identified three processes leading to code status transitions (Table): 1) pre-emptive conversations prior to any clinical change (15.3%; 9/59); 2) anticipatory conversations at the time of acute clinical deterioration (15%; 9/59); and 3) futility conversations after acute clinical deterioration, focused on withdrawing life-sustaining therapy (64.4%; 38/59). Only 55.9% (33/59) of patients participated in their last code status transition and 22.0% (13/59) of these transitions occurred in the ICU or Emergency Room. Conclusions: Most patients with high-risk AML had code status transitions at EOL, often following clinical deterioration that limited their ability to engage in EOL discussions. Interventions to promote earlier and more specific code status conversations are needed to improve patients’ ability to voice their EOL preferences.[Table: see text]