Krauss Sabine H, Rémi Constanze, Bausewein Claudia, Bazata Jeremias, Grebe Alina, Ostgathe Christoph, Schildmann Jan, Schildmann Eva
Department of Palliative Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany.
Department of Palliative Medicine, CCC Erlangen - EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Krankenhausstraße 12, Erlangen, 91054, Germany.
BMC Palliat Care. 2025 Jun 7;24(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12904-025-01781-8.
In palliative care, it can be challenging to distinguish between reduced consciousness related to the illness and sedation due to a potentially sedating drug (intended, or unintended). These differentiations are important because unintended sedation requires consideration of alternative treatment options, and intentional sedation demands compliance with guidelines. The aim of the study, which was part of the consortium project iSedPall, was to determine cut-off values for drugs' doses/dosing intervals which are expected to result in defined depth of sedation/continuous effect.
Group Delphi conducted in Germany with prior online survey. Based on a review of the literature, statements regarding cut-off values for drugs´ doses/dosing intervals which are expected to result in a defined depth of sedation/continuous effect were developed for 11 drugs. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement. Statements with lower agreement entered the next round of discussion. Between the rounds (5 small groups, 3 - 4 participants each), the results were presented and discussed. If necessary, statements were adapted for the following round. Participating experts were physicians, pharmacists, and nurses experienced in palliative care, mostly with over 10 years of professional experience.
25/30 invited experts participated in the online survey, 17 in the Group Delphi. 12/33 statements were consented in the survey. The initial questionnaire for the Group Delphi comprised 22 statements on ten drugs. After three rounds, consensus was reached for all statements, determining cut-off doses/dosing intervals for lorazepam, midazolam, diazepam, levomepromazine, haloperidol, melperone, pipamperone, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and trazodone.
This study for the first time provides evidence- and expert consensus-based data to support clinical judgements regarding sedating effects of a range of potentially sedating drugs commonly used in palliative care.
在姑息治疗中,区分与疾病相关的意识减退和因潜在镇静药物(有意或无意)导致的镇静可能具有挑战性。这些区分很重要,因为无意的镇静需要考虑替代治疗方案,而有意的镇静则需要遵守指南。该研究作为iSedPall联合项目的一部分,旨在确定预期会导致特定镇静深度/持续效果的药物剂量/给药间隔的临界值。
在德国进行小组德尔菲法,并事先进行在线调查。基于文献综述,针对11种药物制定了关于预期会导致特定镇静深度/持续效果的药物剂量/给药间隔临界值的陈述。共识定义为≥75%的一致同意。同意率较低的陈述进入下一轮讨论。在各轮之间(5个小组,每组3 - 4名参与者),展示并讨论结果。如有必要,对陈述进行调整以用于下一轮。参与的专家是在姑息治疗方面有经验的医生、药剂师和护士,大多具有超过10年的专业经验。
30名受邀专家中有25名参与了在线调查,17名参与了小组德尔菲法。调查中有12/33条陈述获得同意。小组德尔菲法的初始问卷包含关于10种药物的22条陈述。经过三轮后,所有陈述均达成共识,确定了劳拉西泮、咪达唑仑、地西泮、左美丙嗪、氟哌啶醇、美哌隆、匹泮哌隆、丙泊酚、右美托咪定和曲唑酮的临界剂量/给药间隔。
本研究首次提供了基于证据和专家共识的数据,以支持关于姑息治疗中常用的一系列潜在镇静药物镇静效果的临床判断。