"Is this sedation?" - a Group Delphi process to define cut-off doses and dosing intervals for potentially sedating drugs in palliative care.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sabine H Krauss, Constanze Rémi, Claudia Bausewein, Jeremias Bazata, Alina Grebe, Christoph Ostgathe, Jan Schildmann, Eva Schildmann
{"title":"\"Is this sedation?\" - a Group Delphi process to define cut-off doses and dosing intervals for potentially sedating drugs in palliative care.","authors":"Sabine H Krauss, Constanze Rémi, Claudia Bausewein, Jeremias Bazata, Alina Grebe, Christoph Ostgathe, Jan Schildmann, Eva Schildmann","doi":"10.1186/s12904-025-01781-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48945,"journal":{"name":"BMC Palliative Care","volume":"24 1","pages":"159"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12144799/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-025-01781-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

“这是镇静剂吗?”-确定缓和治疗中潜在镇静药物的截止剂量和给药间隔的小组德尔菲过程。
背景:在姑息治疗中,区分与疾病相关的意识下降和由于潜在镇静药物(有意或无意)引起的镇静是具有挑战性的。这些区别很重要,因为非故意镇静需要考虑其他治疗方案,而故意镇静需要遵守指南。该研究是财团项目iSedPall的一部分,其目的是确定药物剂量/给药间隔的临界值,该临界值有望导致定义的镇静深度/持续效果。方法:在德国进行事先在线调查的德尔菲小组调查。基于对文献的回顾,对11种药物制定了关于药物剂量/给药间隔的截止值的声明,这些截止值预计会导致确定的镇静深度/持续效果。一致定义为≥75%的同意。同意程度较低的声明进入了下一轮讨论。在每轮(5个小组,每组3 - 4名参与者)之间,报告和讨论结果。如有必要,对发言作了修改以供下一轮讨论。参与研究的专家是在姑息治疗方面经验丰富的医生、药剂师和护士,大多具有10年以上的专业经验。结果:25/30的受邀专家参与了在线调查,17 /33的专家参与了小组德尔福调查,12/33的意见得到了同意。德尔菲组最初的问卷包括对10种药物的22个陈述。三轮后,对所有陈述达成共识,确定了氯拉西泮、咪达唑仑、地西泮、左旋丙嗪、氟哌啶醇、美哌酮、哌哌酮、异丙酚、右美托咪定和曲唑酮的截止剂量/给药间隔。结论:本研究首次提供了基于证据和专家共识的数据,以支持姑息治疗中常用的一系列潜在镇静药物的镇静作用的临床判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Palliative Care
BMC Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Palliative Care is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the clinical, scientific, ethical and policy issues, local and international, regarding all aspects of hospice and palliative care for the dying and for those with profound suffering related to chronic illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信