End-of-Life Care Research Group, Ghent University & Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Jul;44(1):33-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.07.007. Epub 2012 May 30.
Existing empirical evidence shows that continuous deep sedation until death is given in about 15% of all deaths in Flanders, Belgium (BE), 8% in The Netherlands (NL), and 17% in the U.K.
This study compares characteristics of continuous deep sedation to explain these varying frequencies.
In Flanders, BE (2007) and NL (2005), death certificate studies were conducted. Questionnaires about continuous deep sedation and other decisions were sent to the certifying physicians of each death from a stratified sample (Flanders, BE: n=6927; NL: n=6860). In the U.K. in 2007-2008, questionnaires were sent to 8857 randomly sampled physicians asking them about the last death attended.
The total number of deaths studied was 11,704 of which 1517 involved continuous deep sedation. In Dutch hospitals, continuous deep sedation was significantly less often provided (11%) compared with hospitals in Flanders, BE (20%) and the U.K. (17%). In U.K. home settings, continuous deep sedation was more common (19%) than in Flanders, BE (10%) or NL (8%). In NL in both settings, continuous deep sedation more often involved benzodiazepines and lasted less than 24 hours. Physicians in Flanders combined continuous deep sedation with a decision to provide physician-assisted death more often. Overall, men, younger patients, and patients with malignancies were more likely to receive continuous deep sedation, although this was not always significant within each country.
Differences in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation appear to reflect complex legal, cultural, and organizational factors more than differences in patients' characteristics or clinical profiles. Further in-depth studies should explore whether these differences also reflect differences between countries in the quality of end-of-life care.
现有实证表明,在比利时佛兰德(Flanders,BE),约 15%的死亡病例会实施持续深度镇静直至死亡;在荷兰(NL),这一比例为 8%;在英国(U.K.),这一比例为 17%。
本研究通过比较持续深度镇静的特征,解释这些差异出现的原因。
在佛兰德(Flanders,BE)(2007 年)和荷兰(2005 年),开展了死亡证明研究。从分层样本中向每个死亡病例的认证医师发送了关于持续深度镇静和其他决策的问卷(佛兰德(Flanders,BE):n=6927;荷兰(NL):n=6860)。在 2007-2008 年的英国,向 8857 名随机抽样的医师发送了问卷,询问他们上一次参与的死亡病例。
共研究了 11704 例死亡病例,其中 1517 例涉及持续深度镇静。荷兰医院实施持续深度镇静的比例明显较低(11%),而佛兰德(Flanders,BE)(20%)和英国(U.K.)(17%)的比例较高。在英国的家庭环境中,实施持续深度镇静的比例较高(19%),而佛兰德(Flanders,BE)(10%)和荷兰(NL)(8%)的比例较低。在 NL 的两种环境中,持续深度镇静更多地涉及苯二氮䓬类药物,且持续时间不到 24 小时。佛兰德的医师更倾向于将持续深度镇静与实施协助死亡的决定结合。总体而言,男性、年轻患者和患有恶性肿瘤的患者更有可能接受持续深度镇静,尽管在每个国家内这种情况并非总是具有统计学意义。
持续深度镇静的流行程度差异似乎更多地反映了复杂的法律、文化和组织因素,而不是患者特征或临床特征的差异。进一步的深入研究应探讨这些差异是否也反映了各国在临终关怀质量方面的差异。