van Beinum Amanda, Hornby Laura, Ramsay Tim, Ward Roxanne, Shemie Sam D, Dhanani Sonny
Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Bertram Loeb Research Consortium in Organ and Tissue Donation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
J Intensive Care Med. 2016 May;31(4):243-51. doi: 10.1177/0885066615571529. Epub 2015 Feb 12.
The process of controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is strongly connected with the process of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. In addition to impacting cDCD success, actions comprising withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy have implications for quality of palliative care. We examined pilot study data from Canadian intensive care units to explore current practices of life-sustaining therapy withdrawal in nondonor patients and described variability in standard practice.
Secondary analysis of observational data collected for Determination of Death Practices in Intensive Care pilot study.
Four Canadian adult intensive care units.
Patients ≥18 years in whom a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapy was made and substitute decision makers consented to study participation. Organ donors were excluded.
None.
Prospective observational data on interventions withdrawn, drugs administered, and timing of life-sustaining therapy withdrawal was available for 36 patients who participated in the pilot study. Of the patients, 42% died in ≤1 hour; median length of time to death varied between intensive care units (39-390 minutes). Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy processes appeared to follow a general pattern of vasoactive drug withdrawal followed by withdrawal of mechanical ventilation and extubation in most sites but specific steps varied. Approaches to extubation and weaning of vasoactive drugs were not consistent. Protocols detailing the process of life-sustaining therapy withdrawal were available for 3 of 4 sites and also exhibited differences across sites.
Standard practice of life-sustaining therapy withdrawal appears to differ between selected Canadian sites. Variability in withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy may have a potential impact both on rates of cDCD success and quality of palliative care.
循环性死亡后控制捐献(cDCD)过程与维持生命治疗的撤除过程密切相关。除了影响cDCD的成功率外,维持生命治疗的撤除行动还对姑息治疗质量有影响。我们研究了来自加拿大重症监护病房的试点研究数据,以探讨非捐献患者维持生命治疗撤除的当前做法,并描述标准做法中的差异。
对重症监护中死亡判定实践试点研究收集的观察数据进行二次分析。
四个加拿大成人重症监护病房。
年龄≥18岁且已做出撤除维持生命治疗决定且替代决策者同意参与研究的患者。器官捐献者被排除。
无。
参与试点研究的36例患者有关于撤除的干预措施、给予的药物以及维持生命治疗撤除时间的前瞻性观察数据。其中,42%的患者在≤1小时内死亡;不同重症监护病房的中位死亡时间有所不同(39 - 390分钟)。在大多数场所,维持生命治疗的撤除过程似乎遵循一般模式,即先撤除血管活性药物,随后撤除机械通气并拔管,但具体步骤存在差异。拔管和血管活性药物撤机的方法不一致。4个场所中有3个场所提供了详细说明维持生命治疗撤除过程的方案,各场所之间也存在差异。
加拿大部分场所维持生命治疗撤除的标准做法似乎有所不同。维持生命治疗撤除的差异可能对cDCD成功率和姑息治疗质量都有潜在影响。