Le Dorze Matthieu, Barthélémy Romain, Giabicani Mikhael, Audibert Gérard, Cousin François, Gakuba Clément, Robert René, Chousterman Benjamin, Perrigault Pierre-François
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, DMU PARABOL, Lariboisière Hospital, AP-HP Nord, Paris, France.
Université Paris-Saclay, CESP U1018, Inserm, Paris, France.
Palliat Med. 2023 Sep;37(8):1202-1209. doi: 10.1177/02692163231180656. Epub 2023 Jun 12.
Continuous and deep sedation until death is a much highly debated end-of-life practice. France is unique in having a regulatory framework for it. However, there are no data on its practice in intensive care units (ICUs).
The aim is to describe continuous and deep sedation in relation to the framework in the specific context of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in ICUs, that is, its decision-making process and its practice compared to other end-of-life practices in this setting.
French multicenter observational study. Consecutive ICU patients who died after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies.
A total of 343 patients in 57 ICUs, 208 (60%) with continuous and deep sedation. A formalized procedure for continuous and deep sedation was available in 32% of the ICUs. Continuous and deep sedation was not the result of a collegial decision-making process in 17% of cases, and did not involve consultation with an external physician in 29% of cases. The most commonly used sedative medicines were midazolam (10 [5-18] mg h) and propofol (200 [120-250] mg h ). The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was -5 in 60% of cases. Analgesia was associated with sedation in 94% of cases. Compared with other end-of-life sedative practices ( = 98), medicines doses were higher with no difference in the depth of sedation.
This study shows a poor compliance with the framework for continuous and deep sedation. It highlights the need to formalize it to improve the decision-making process and the match between the intent, the practice and the actual effect.
持续深度镇静直至死亡是一种备受争议的临终医疗行为。法国在这方面拥有独特的监管框架。然而,目前尚无关于其在重症监护病房(ICU)实际应用的数据。
本研究旨在描述在ICU中撤除维持生命治疗这一特定背景下,持续深度镇静与相关框架的关系,即其决策过程以及与该环境下其他临终医疗行为相比的实际应用情况。
法国多中心观察性研究。选取在决定撤除维持生命治疗后死亡的连续入住ICU的患者。
57个ICU的343例患者中,208例(60%)接受了持续深度镇静。32%的ICU有持续深度镇静的规范化流程。17%的病例中,持续深度镇静并非通过集体决策过程决定,29%的病例未咨询外部医生。最常用的镇静药物是咪达唑仑(10 [5 - 18]毫克/小时)和丙泊酚(200 [120 - 250]毫克/小时)。60%的病例里,里士满躁动镇静量表(RASS)评分为 -5。94%的病例中镇痛与镇静同时使用。与其他临终镇静医疗行为(n = 98)相比,药物剂量更高,但镇静深度无差异。
本研究表明在持续深度镇静框架方面存在依从性差的问题。强调了将其规范化以改善决策过程以及意图、实际应用和实际效果之间匹配度的必要性。