Suppr超能文献

[住院老年患者姑息性镇静分析:一项方案的有效性]

[Analysis of palliative sedation in hospitalised elderly patients: Effectiveness of a protocol].

作者信息

Mateos-Nozal Jesús, García-Cabrera Lorena, Montero Errasquín Beatriz, Cruz-Jentoft Alfonso José, Rexach Cano Lourdes

机构信息

Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España.

Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España.

出版信息

Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2016 May-Jun;51(3):132-9. doi: 10.1016/j.regg.2015.07.012. Epub 2015 Oct 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To measure changes in the practice of palliative sedation during agony in hospitalised elderly patients before and after the implementation of a palliative sedation protocol.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective before-after study was performed in hospitalised patients over 65 years old who received midazolam during hospital admission and died in the hospital in two 3-month periods, before and after the implementation of the protocol. Non-sedative uses of midazolam and patients in intensive care were excluded. Patient and admission characteristics, the consent process, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, and the sedation process (refractory symptom treated, drug doses, assessment and use of other drugs) were recorded. Association was analysed using the Chi(2) and Student t tests.

RESULTS

A total of 143 patients were included, with no significant differences between groups in demographic characteristics or symptoms. Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders were recorded in approximately 70% of the subjects of each group, and informed consent for sedation was recorded in 91% before vs. 84% after the protocol. Induction and maintenance doses of midazolam followed protocol recommendations in 1.3% before vs 10.4% after the protocol was implemented (P=.02) and adequate rescue doses were used in 1.3% vs 11.9% respectively (P=.01). Midazolam doses were significantly lower (9.86mg vs 18.67mg, P<.001) when the protocol was used than when it was not used. Ramsay sedation score was used in 8% vs. 12% and the Palliative Care Team was involved in 35.5% and 16.4% of the cases (P=.008) before and after the protocol, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of midazolam slightly improved after the implementation of a hospital protocol on palliative sedation. The percentage of adequate sedations and the general process of sedation were mostly unchanged by the protocol. More education and further assessment is needed to gauge the effect of these measures in the future.

摘要

目的

测量姑息性镇静方案实施前后住院老年患者临终时姑息性镇静实践的变化。

材料与方法

对65岁以上住院患者进行一项前后回顾性研究,这些患者在住院期间接受咪达唑仑治疗,并在方案实施前后的两个3个月期间在医院死亡。排除咪达唑仑的非镇静用途和重症监护患者。记录患者和入院特征、同意过程、生命维持治疗的撤除以及镇静过程(治疗的难治性症状、药物剂量、其他药物的评估和使用)。使用卡方检验和学生t检验分析相关性。

结果

共纳入143例患者,两组在人口统计学特征或症状方面无显著差异。每组约70%的受试者记录了不进行心肺复苏(DNR)医嘱,方案实施前镇静的知情同意记录为91%,实施后为84%。咪达唑仑的诱导和维持剂量在方案实施前遵循方案建议的为1.3%,实施后为10.4%(P = 0.02),分别有1.3%和11.9%使用了足够的抢救剂量(P = 0.01)。使用方案时咪达唑仑剂量显著低于未使用方案时(9.86mg对18.67mg,P < 0.001)。方案实施前后分别有8%和12%使用了 Ramsay 镇静评分,姑息治疗团队参与的病例分别为35.5%和16.4%(P = 0.008)。

结论

医院姑息性镇静方案实施后,咪达唑仑的使用略有改善。方案对充分镇静的百分比和总体镇静过程大多没有改变。未来需要更多教育和进一步评估来衡量这些措施的效果。

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