RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize available recommendations from scientific societies and experts on pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Biblioteca Virtual en Salud from their inception until March 28, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included all clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and benchmarks for quality. DATA EXTRACTION: Study selection, methodological quality, and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators. A quality assessment was performed by four investigators using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. The recommendations were then synthesized and categorized. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten publications were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II statement showed low scores in various quality domains, especially in the applicability and rigor of development. Most documents were in agreement on five topics: 1) using a quantitative tool for pain assessment; 2) administering narcotics for pain relief and benzodiazepines for anxiety relief; 3) against prescribing neuromuscular blockers during withdrawal of life support to assess pain; 4) endorsing the use of high doses of opioids and sedatives for pain control, regardless of the risk that they will hasten death; and 5) using quality indicators to improve pain management during end-of-life in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the lack of high-quality evidence, recommendations for pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU are homogeneous and are justified by ethical principles and agreement among experts. Considering the growing demand for the involvement of palliative care teams in the management of the dying patients in the ICU, there is a need to clearly define their early involvement and to further develop comprehensive evidence-based pain management strategies. Based on the study findings, we propose a management algorithm to improve the overall care of dying critically ill patients.
Assuntos
Conferências de Consenso como Assunto , Estado Terminal/terapia , Manejo da Dor , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Assistência Terminal , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Ansiedade/tratamento farmacológico , Benzodiazepinas/uso terapêutico , Contraindicações de Medicamentos , Estado Terminal/psicologia , Humanos , Hipnóticos e Sedativos/uso terapêutico , Bloqueio Neuromuscular/efeitos adversos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Medição da Dor , Cuidados Paliativos , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Suspensão de TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Intensive care triage practices and end-user interpretation of triage guidelines have rarely been assessed. We evaluated agreement between providers on the prioritization of patients for ICU admission using different triage guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centered randomized study on providers from 18 different countries was conducted using clinical vignettes of oncological patients. The level of agreement between providers was measured using two different guidelines, with one being cancer specific. RESULTS: Amongst 257 providers, 52.5% randomly received the Society of Critical Care Prioritization Model, and 47.5% received a cancer specific flowchart as a guide. In the Prioritization Model arm the average entropy was 1.193, versus 1.153 in the flowchart arm (Pâ¯=â¯.095) indicating similarly poor agreement. The Fleiss' kappa coefficients were estimated to be 0.2136 for the SCCMPM arm and 0.2457 for the flowchart arm, also similarly implying poor agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The low agreement amongst practitioners on the prioritization of cancer patient cases for ICU admission existed using both general triage guidelines and guidelines tailored only to cancer patients. The lack of consensus on intensive care unit triage practices in the oncological population exposes a potential barrier to appropriate resource allocation that needs to be addressed.