Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg; Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2023 Apr 7;120(14):235-242. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0034.
The appropriate provision of sedation as a last resort for the relief of suffering in palliative care is dealt with variably in actual practice. This article is intended as an overview of practically relevant information found in treatment recommendations and guidelines.
A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, and a manual search was carried out online. Recommendations that were not available in either German or English, or that were specific to pediatric practice, were excluded. Publication quality was assessed with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II). The recommendations in the documents were qualitatively evaluated.
29 publications (11 journal articles, 18 other) of varying quality according to AGREE II were included. All recommendations and guidelines were essentially based on expert consensus. The common indications for sedation are otherwise intractable delirium, dyspnea, and pain, in patients with a life expectancy of no more than two weeks. Existential distress is a controversial indication. The drug of first choice is midazolam. As the sedating effect of opioids is hard to predict, they should not be used as sedatives. The risks of sedation include respiratory and circulatory depression, as well as the loss of communicative ability, control, and autonomy. It is generally recommended that the patient's symptom burden and depth of sedation should be monitored; clinical and technically supported monitoring are recommended in some publications as well, depending on the situation.
There is a broad consensus in favor of sedation to relieve suffering in the last days and hours of life. Recommendations vary for patients with a longer life expectancy and for those with existential distress, and with respect to monitoring.
在姑息治疗中,作为缓解痛苦的最后手段,适当提供镇静治疗在实际实践中存在差异。本文旨在概述治疗建议和指南中发现的与实践相关的信息。
在 PubMed、Scopus 和 Google Scholar 数据库中进行了系统的文献检索,并在线进行了手动检索。排除了没有德语或英语版本的建议,或特定于儿科实践的建议。使用 AGREE II 工具(评估研究和评估指南 II)评估建议的质量。对文件中的建议进行定性评估。
共纳入 29 篇质量不一的出版物(11 篇期刊文章,18 篇其他),根据 AGREE II 进行评估。所有的建议和指南基本上都是基于专家共识。镇静的常见指征是无法控制的谵妄、呼吸困难和疼痛,且患者的预期寿命不超过两周。存在性痛苦是一个有争议的指征。首选药物是咪达唑仑。由于阿片类药物的镇静作用难以预测,因此不应将其用作镇静剂。镇静的风险包括呼吸和循环抑制,以及丧失沟通能力、控制和自主权。一般建议监测患者的症状负担和镇静深度;根据情况,一些出版物还建议进行临床和技术支持监测。
在生命的最后几天和几个小时缓解痛苦时,广泛支持使用镇静治疗。对于预期寿命较长的患者和存在存在性痛苦的患者,以及在监测方面,建议存在差异。