Suppr超能文献

随机对照试验:一项结构化干预措施,以促进晚期癌症患者的临终决策。

Randomized controlled trial of a structured intervention to facilitate end-of-life decision making in patients with advanced cancer.

机构信息

All authors: University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

J Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep 20;31(27):3403-10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.8872. Epub 2013 Jul 29.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study tested the efficacy of an intervention on end-of-life decision making for patients with advanced cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty patients with metastatic cancer who were no longer being treated with curative intent (and 87 caregivers) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 55) or treatment as usual (n = 65). Primary outcome measures were the proportion of patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, timing of DNR orders, and place of death. Secondary outcome measures were completed at study enrollment, 3 weeks later, and 3 months later, including patients' knowledge, mood, and caregiver burden.

RESULTS

High, but equivalent, rates of DNR orders were observed in both groups. In per-protocol analyses, DNR orders were placed earlier for patients who received the intervention (median, 27 v 12.5 days; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.9; P = .03) and they were more likely to avoid a hospital death (19% v 50% (95% CI, 11% to 50%; P = .004). Differences between the groups over time were evident for estimates of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation (CPR) success rates (P = .01) but not knowledge of CPR (P = .2). There was no evidence that the intervention resulted in more anxious or depressive symptoms. Caregivers experienced less burden in terms of disruption to schedule if the patient received the intervention (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

An intervention, consisting of an informational pamphlet and discussion, was associated with earlier placement of DNR orders relative to death and less likelihood of death in hospital. There was no negative impact of the intervention on secondary outcomes, although the sample may have been too small to detect differences.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在测试一项针对晚期癌症患者临终决策的干预措施的疗效。

患者和方法

120 名已不再接受治愈性治疗的转移性癌症患者(和 87 名护理人员)被随机分配至干预组(n = 55)或常规治疗组(n = 65)。主要结局指标为不复苏(DNR)医嘱的患者比例、DNR 医嘱的下达时间和死亡地点。次要结局指标在研究入组时、3 周后和 3 个月后进行评估,包括患者的知识、情绪和护理人员负担。

结果

两组的 DNR 医嘱率均较高,但相当。在符合方案分析中,接受干预的患者更早地下达了 DNR 医嘱(中位数,27 天比 12.5 天;95%置信区间,1.1 至 5.9;P =.03),并且更有可能避免在医院死亡(19%比 50%(95%置信区间,11%至 50%;P =.004)。两组在心肺复苏(CPR)成功率(P =.01)方面的估计值随时间的差异明显,但在 CPR 知识(P =.2)方面没有差异。干预措施并未导致焦虑或抑郁症状增加。如果患者接受了干预,护理人员在日程安排中断方面的负担会减轻(P =.05)。

结论

由宣传册和讨论组成的干预措施与更早下达 DNR 医嘱和降低在医院死亡的可能性相关。尽管样本可能太小,无法检测到差异,但干预措施对次要结局没有负面影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验