Faber-Langendoen K
Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Chest. 1994 Sep;106(3):880-8. doi: 10.1378/chest.106.3.880.
Despite mechanical ventilation's widespread use, there is scant literature to guide the management of patients receiving mechanical ventilatory assistance who are foregoing life-sustaining treatment. This survey was conducted to characterize physician treatment of such patients.
Surveys were mailed to 513 randomly selected critical care physicians and returned by 308 (60 percent); 273 respondents were involved in ventilator management; all others were excluded.
Forty percent of respondents were internists, 28 percent were surgeons, 16 percent were pediatricians, and 11 percent were anesthesiologists; 85 percent of physicians were board eligible/certified in a critical care subspecialty.
Fifteen percent of respondents almost never withdrew ventilators from dying patients foregoing life-sustaining treatment; 37 percent did so less than half the time. Twenty-six percent of physicians believed there was a moral difference between withholding and withdrawing ventilators. Of physicians who withdrew ventilators, 33 percent preferred terminal weaning, 13 percent preferred extubation, and the remainder used both methods. Reasons for preferring extubation included the directness of the action (72 percent), family perceptions (34 percent), and patient comfort (34 percent). Reasons for preferring terminal weaning included patient comfort (65 percent), family perceptions (63 percent), and the belief that terminal weaning was less active (49 percent). Morphine and benzodiazepines were used frequently by 74 percent (morphine) and 53 percent (benzodiazepines) of physicians when withdrawing ventilators; 6 percent used paralytics at least occasionally.
There is significant variation in the care of dying patients receiving mechanical ventilatory assistance, with 15 percent of respondents almost never withdrawing ventilators from such patients. Two very different methods of ventilator withdrawal each have advocates, yet rationales of patient comfort and family perceptions are matters of individual experience, absent published studies. The occasional use of paralytics during ventilator withdrawal raises concern about current practice.
尽管机械通气已广泛应用,但关于接受机械通气辅助且放弃生命维持治疗患者的管理,相关文献却很少。本次调查旨在描述医生对这类患者的治疗情况。
向513名随机选取的重症监护医生邮寄调查问卷,308人(60%)回复;273名受访者参与了呼吸机管理;其他所有人被排除。
40%的受访者是内科医生,28%是外科医生,16%是儿科医生,11%是麻醉医生;85%的医生具备重症监护亚专业的资格认证。
15%的受访者几乎从不为放弃生命维持治疗的濒死患者撤掉呼吸机;37%的受访者这样做的时间不到一半。26%的医生认为在停止使用呼吸机和撤掉呼吸机之间存在道德差异。在撤掉呼吸机的医生中,33%倾向于终末撤机法,13%倾向于拔管,其余则同时使用两种方法。倾向于拔管的原因包括操作直接(72%)、家属看法(34%)和患者舒适度(34%)。倾向于终末撤机法的原因包括患者舒适度(65%)、家属看法(63%)以及认为终末撤机法不那么积极主动(49%)。74%(吗啡)和53%(苯二氮䓬类药物)的医生在撤掉呼吸机时经常使用吗啡和苯二氮䓬类药物;6%的医生至少偶尔使用麻痹性药物。
接受机械通气辅助的濒死患者的护理存在显著差异,15%的受访者几乎从不为这类患者撤掉呼吸机。两种截然不同的撤机方法都有支持者,但患者舒适度和家属看法的理论依据是个人经验问题,缺乏已发表的研究。撤机过程中偶尔使用麻痹性药物引发了对当前做法的担忧。