Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, End-of-Life Care Research Group, Brussels, Belgium.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Brussels, Belgium.
Palliat Med. 2021 Apr;35(4):670-682. doi: 10.1177/0269216321996990. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
Extensive debate surrounds the practice of continuous sedation until death within end-of-life care.
To provide insight into existing initiatives to support the practice of continuous sedation until death and assess their feasibility and effectiveness.
Systematic review and narrative synthesis, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020149630).
Records were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to April 16 2020. Peer-reviewed studies reporting original data on initiatives to support the practice of continuous sedation were included for review.
Twenty-one studies met the criteria and were included. Initiatives were focused on assessment tools of consciousness and discomfort (9), the use of guidelines and protocols (8), and expert consultation (3). All initiatives were reported as useful, acceptable, and feasible. Studies on the use of monitoring devices showed that a small proportion of patients were found to be awake, despite the patient being unresponsive according to the observer-based sedation scales. However, the wide range of values of these monitoring devices for comfortable and adequately sedated patients seems to hamper its overall implementation in daily clinical practice. Physicians reported changes in practice conform to guideline recommendations but the shift was modest at best. Expert consultation was regarded as supportive when sufficient expertise is lacking and helpful in avoiding possibly unnecessary sedations.
The reviewed initiatives may contribute to improvement of continuous sedation until death, though their evidence base is rather limited. More insight is needed into their feasibility, preconditions for effective implementation and impact in actual practice.
在生命末期关怀中,关于直至死亡持续镇静的实践存在广泛的争议。
深入了解支持直至死亡持续镇静实践的现有举措,并评估其可行性和有效性。
系统评价和叙述性综合,在 PROSPERO(CRD42020149630)上注册。
从建库至 2020 年 4 月 16 日,通过 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、CINAHL 和 Web of Science 检索记录。纳入了评估支持持续镇静实践举措的原始数据的同行评议研究进行综述。
21 项研究符合标准并被纳入。举措集中在意识和不适的评估工具(9 项)、指南和方案的使用(8 项)以及专家咨询(3 项)上。所有举措均被报告为有用、可接受和可行。关于监测设备使用的研究表明,尽管根据观察者镇静量表,患者无反应,但仍有一小部分患者被发现处于清醒状态。然而,这些监测设备对于舒适和充分镇静患者的广泛数值范围似乎阻碍了其在日常临床实践中的全面实施。医生报告称,实践的改变符合指南建议,但最多只是适度的改变。在缺乏足够专业知识时,专家咨询被认为是支持性的,并且有助于避免可能不必要的镇静。
所审查的举措可能有助于改善直至死亡的持续镇静,但它们的证据基础相当有限。需要更多地了解其可行性、有效实施的前提条件以及在实际实践中的影响。