Pain Relief & Supportive Care, La Maddalena Cancer Center, Palermo, Italy.
Pain Relief & Supportive Care, La Maddalena Cancer Center, Palermo, Italy.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Jan;57(1):79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.10.492. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
The clinical response after comprehensive symptom management is difficult to determine in terms of a clinically important difference. Moreover, therapies should try to reach the threshold perceived by the individual patient for the determination of a favorable response to a treatment.
The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) was measured at admission (T0), and seven days after starting palliative care (T7). Patient Global Impression and Goal Response after one week of palliative care and its relation with the Personalized Dyspnea Goal were measured at T7.
Patients admitted to palliative care units underwent a comprehensive symptom assessment by a specialist palliative care team. At T0, patients were asked about their Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal on ESAS. One week later (T7), after a comprehensive palliative care treatment, Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goals were measured again. Patients were considered to have achieved a Patient Dyspnea Goal Response if dyspnea intensity (measured at T7) was equal or less than their expected Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal. At the same interval (T7), Patient Global Impression (improvement or deterioration) was measured.
279 patients were analyzed in this study. The mean Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal at T0 and T7 were 0.97 (SD 1.3), and 0.71 (SD 2.1), respectively. 263 patients (94.2%) indicated a Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal of ≤3 as a target at T0. Patients perceived a bit better, a better improvement, and a much better improvement with a mean decrease in dyspnea intensity of -2.1, -3.5, and -4.3 points on the dyspnea intensity scale, respectively. In 60 patients (21.5%), dyspnea intensity did not change, and in 4.7%, dyspnea intensity worsened. Patients perceived a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (little worse) with a mean increase in dyspnea intensity of 0.10, and they perceived a worse with a mean increase of 1.7 points. Higher dyspnea intensity at T0 and lower dyspnea intensity at T7 were independently related to Patient Global Impression. At T7, 93 (33.3%) patients achieved their Personalized Goal Response, based on Personalized Dyspnea Intensity. Patient Dyspnea Goal Response was associated with Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale score and Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal at T0, and inversely associated with dyspnea intensity at T0 and T7, and lower Karnofsky level. For Patient Dyspnea Goal Response, no significant differences among categories of dyspnea intensity were found (P>0.05).
Patient Dyspnea Goal Response and Patient Global Impression seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of symptoms, including dyspnea, assisting decision making process. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response. A personalized symptom goal may translate in terms of therapeutic intervention, according to the achievement of the patients' expectations. High values of dyspnea intensity, a lower Karnofsky level, as well as high level of Dyspnea Intensity Goal (that is less patients' expectations) favor the achievement of the target.
全面症状管理后的临床反应很难确定在临床上有重要差异。此外,治疗方法应尽量达到个体患者感知到的有利于治疗反应的阈值。
在入院时(T0)和开始姑息治疗后七天(T7)测量埃德蒙顿症状评估量表(ESAS)。在 T7 时测量姑息治疗一周后的患者整体印象和目标反应及其与个性化呼吸困难目标的关系。
入住姑息治疗病房的患者由专业姑息治疗团队进行全面症状评估。在 T0,患者被问及他们在 ESAS 上的个性化呼吸困难强度目标。一周后(T7),在全面姑息治疗后,再次测量个性化呼吸困难强度目标。如果呼吸困难强度(在 T7 时测量)等于或低于预期的个性化呼吸困难强度目标,则患者被认为达到了患者呼吸困难目标反应。在同一时间间隔(T7),测量患者整体印象(改善或恶化)。
本研究分析了 279 名患者。T0 和 T7 的平均个性化呼吸困难强度目标分别为 0.97(SD 1.3)和 0.71(SD 2.1)。263 名患者(94.2%)在 T0 时表示将个性化呼吸困难强度目标设定为≤3。患者的呼吸困难强度平均下降了-2.1、-3.5 和-4.3 分,感觉稍好、改善更好、改善非常好。60 名患者(21.5%)呼吸困难强度没有变化,4.7%呼吸困难强度恶化。患者感觉有轻微的恶化,呼吸困难强度平均增加了 0.10 分,感觉恶化了,呼吸困难强度平均增加了 1.7 分。T0 时呼吸困难强度较高和 T7 时呼吸困难强度较低与患者整体印象独立相关。在 T7,根据个性化呼吸困难强度,93 名(33.3%)患者达到了个性化目标反应。患者呼吸困难目标反应与纪念谵妄评估量表评分和 T0 时的个性化呼吸困难强度目标相关,与 T0 和 T7 时的呼吸困难强度以及较低的卡诺夫斯基评分呈负相关。对于患者呼吸困难目标反应,在呼吸困难强度的类别之间没有发现显著差异(P>0.05)。
患者呼吸困难目标反应和患者整体印象似乎与评估包括呼吸困难在内的症状全面管理的效果有关,有助于决策过程。一些因素可能与确定个体目标和临床反应有关。根据患者的期望,个性化的症状目标可能转化为治疗干预。较高的呼吸困难强度值、较低的卡诺夫斯基评分以及较高的呼吸困难强度目标(即患者期望较低)有利于达到目标。