4.1 Review

Palliative sedation therapy in the last weeks of life: A literature review and recommendations for standards

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 67-85

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2006.0139

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is a controversial issue. There is a need for internationally accepted definitions and standards. Methods: A, systematic review of the literature was performed by an international panel of 29 palliative care experts. Draft papers were written on various topics concerning PST. This paper is a summary of the individual papers, written after two meetings and extensive e-mail discussions. Results: PST is defined as the use of specific sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness, using appropriate drugs carefully titrated to the cessation of symptoms. The initial dose of sedatives should usually be small enough to maintain the patients' ability to communicate periodically. The team looking after the patient should have enough expertise and experience to judge the symptom as refractory. Advice from palliative care specialists is strongly recommended before initiating PST. In the case of continuous and deep PST, the disease should be irreversible and advanced, with death expected within hours to days. Midazolam should be considered first-line choice. The decision whether or not to withhold or withdraw hydration should be discussed separately. Hydration should be offered only if it is considered likely that the benefit will outweigh the harm. PST is distinct from euthanasia because (1) it has the intent to provide symptom relief, (2) it is a proportionate intervention, and (3) the death of the patient is not a criterion for success. PST and its outcome should be carefully monitored and documented. Conclusion: When other treatments fail to relieve suffering in the imminently dying patient, PST is a valid palliative care option.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据