Palliative and Supportive Care Division, Seirei Mikatahara Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan
Clinical Research Promotion Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 22;12(4):e060489. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060489.
To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS.
Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study.
Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111).
Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS.
There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS.
Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.
探讨不同国家和国内医生对持续使用镇静剂(CUS)的意见差异,以及影响其对 CUS 认可的因素。
对问卷调查的二次分析。
德国(n=273)、意大利(n=198)、日本(n=334)和英国(n=111)的姑息治疗医生。
对 4 种情况下的 CUS 医生认可情况、意图和治疗目标、镇静剂的使用方式和对 CUS 的信念进行评估。
在是否同意以下观点方面,不同国家之间或国内不同地区之间没有显著差异:(1)CUS 没有必要,因为其他措施总能缓解痛苦(大多不同意);(2)CUS 的意图是缓解痛苦;(3)不打算缩短临终过程。然而,在以下观点方面,不同国家之间存在显著差异:(1)CUS 可接受用于生存时间较长或存在心理-生存痛苦的患者;(2)意识下降是预期的;(3)选择神经阻滞剂或阿片类药物。CUS 对生存时间较长或存在心理-生存痛苦的患者的可接受性,以及意识下降是否是预期的,也存在广泛的国内差异。此外,同意与不同意 CUS 即使在无反应的患者中也可能无法充分缓解痛苦这一说法的医生比例大致相同。回归分析显示,医生和国家相关因素都与医生对 CUS 的认可独立相关。
镇静剂的使用差异既受医生相关因素的影响,也受国家相关因素的影响,但姑息治疗医生一致认为镇静剂有助于控制症状。未来的研究应侧重于(1)在生存时间较长或主要存在心理-生存痛苦的患者中是否应使用镇静剂,(2)了解医生的意图和治疗目标,(3)不同药物的疗效,以及(4)了解接受 CUS 治疗的患者的实际体验。