Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Department of Neurology, Elisabeth-Twee Steden ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Nov 14;16(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0234-8.
Patients with severe stroke often do not have the capacity to participate in discussions on treatment restrictions because of a reduced level of consciousness, aphasia, or another cognitive disorder. We assessed the role of advance directives and proxy opinions in the decision-making process of incapacitated patients.
Sixty patients with severe functional dependence (Barthel Index ≤6) at day four after ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage were included in a prospective two-center cohort study. The decision-making process with respect to treatment restrictions was assessed by means of a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the treating physician at the day of inclusion.
Forty-nine patients (82%) did not have the capacity to participate in the decision-making process. In eight patients, there was no discussion on treatment restrictions and full care was installed. In 41 patients, the decision whether to install treatment restrictions was discussed with proxies. One patient had a written advance directive. In the remaining 40 patients, proxies based their opinion on previously expressed wishes of the patient (18 patients) or advised in the best interest of the patient (22 patients). In 36 of 41 patients, treatment restrictions were installed after agreement between physician and proxy. At six months, 23 of 49 patients had survived. In only three of them the decision on treatment restrictions was based on previously expressed wishes. Remarkably, two of these survivors could not recall any of their alleged previously expressed wishes.
Treatment restrictions were installed in the majority of incapacitated patients after stroke. Proxy opinions frequently served as the best way to respect the patients' autonomy, but their accuracy remains unclear.
由于意识水平降低、失语症或其他认知障碍,患有严重中风的患者通常没有能力参与关于治疗限制的讨论。我们评估了预先指示和代理人意见在丧失能力的患者决策过程中的作用。
在缺血性中风或脑出血后第四天,我们对 60 名严重功能依赖(Barthel 指数≤6)的患者进行了前瞻性的双中心队列研究。通过在纳入当天对主治医生进行半结构化问卷调查来评估与治疗限制相关的决策过程。
49 名患者(82%)没有能力参与决策过程。在 8 名患者中,没有讨论治疗限制,而是安装了全面护理。在 41 名患者中,与代理人讨论了是否安装治疗限制的问题。一名患者有书面的预先指示。在其余 40 名患者中,代理人根据患者之前的意愿(18 名患者)或为患者的最佳利益提供建议(22 名患者)发表意见。在 41 名患者中,有 36 名患者在医生和代理人达成一致后安装了治疗限制。在 6 个月时,49 名患者中有 23 名存活。在这些患者中,只有 3 人的治疗限制决定是基于之前表达的意愿。值得注意的是,这 3 名幸存者中有 2 人无法回忆起任何他们声称的先前表达的意愿。
在中风后,大多数丧失能力的患者都安装了治疗限制。代理人的意见通常是尊重患者自主权的最佳方式,但准确性仍不清楚。