Outcomes of Palliative Care in Extracorporeal Life Support: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Whitney A Kiker, Anna L Condella, Astrid Grouls, Daniel Brodie, Leanne Delaney, Eddy Fan, Teresa Jewell, Erin K Kross, Jamie T Nomitch, Lauren Pollack, Rashmi Sharma, Ann L Jennerich
{"title":"Outcomes of Palliative Care in Extracorporeal Life Support: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Whitney A Kiker, Anna L Condella, Astrid Grouls, Daniel Brodie, Leanne Delaney, Eddy Fan, Teresa Jewell, Erin K Kross, Jamie T Nomitch, Lauren Pollack, Rashmi Sharma, Ann L Jennerich","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.08.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Use of palliative care in extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has increased, but its impact on patient- and family-centered outcomes remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the relationship between specialty palliative care and patient- and family-centered outcomes for patients receiving ECLS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) through August 26, 2024. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review for inclusion. Data were extracted for prespecified critical and important outcomes, and evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine observational studies were included, incorporating data from 21,417 patients receiving ECLS, with 4368 seen by specialty palliative care. For all outcomes, certainty of evidence was very low. Two studies included a critical outcome: one found no difference in \"average pain\" and one reported more goals-of-care notes, comparing those seen by palliative care to those not seen. Five studies reported longer ECLS duration among those with palliative care consultation compared to those without. Three studies performed statistical comparisons of survival for patients with and without palliative care consultation and found no significant differences in hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Few studies have investigated patient- and family-centered outcomes related to specialty palliative care for patients receiving ECLS. Specialty palliative care does not appear to correlate with mortality, supporting the concept that palliative care can support goals-of-care conversations and end-of-life decision making without negatively affecting patient survival. However, limitations of the existing data preclude meaningful conclusions about the relationship between specialty palliative care and other patient- and family-centered outcomes. Additional research is needed to clarify the optimal role of specialty palliative care in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.08.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Use of palliative care in extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has increased, but its impact on patient- and family-centered outcomes remains unclear.

Objective: To examine the relationship between specialty palliative care and patient- and family-centered outcomes for patients receiving ECLS.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) through August 26, 2024. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review for inclusion. Data were extracted for prespecified critical and important outcomes, and evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results: Nine observational studies were included, incorporating data from 21,417 patients receiving ECLS, with 4368 seen by specialty palliative care. For all outcomes, certainty of evidence was very low. Two studies included a critical outcome: one found no difference in "average pain" and one reported more goals-of-care notes, comparing those seen by palliative care to those not seen. Five studies reported longer ECLS duration among those with palliative care consultation compared to those without. Three studies performed statistical comparisons of survival for patients with and without palliative care consultation and found no significant differences in hospital mortality.

Conclusion: Few studies have investigated patient- and family-centered outcomes related to specialty palliative care for patients receiving ECLS. Specialty palliative care does not appear to correlate with mortality, supporting the concept that palliative care can support goals-of-care conversations and end-of-life decision making without negatively affecting patient survival. However, limitations of the existing data preclude meaningful conclusions about the relationship between specialty palliative care and other patient- and family-centered outcomes. Additional research is needed to clarify the optimal role of specialty palliative care in this population.

体外生命支持中姑息治疗的结果:系统回顾。
背景:在体外生命支持(ECLS)中使用姑息治疗的情况有所增加,但其对以患者和家庭为中心的结果的影响尚不清楚。目的:探讨专科姑息治疗与接受ECLS患者以患者和家庭为中心的预后之间的关系。方法:截至2024年8月26日,我们对PubMed、EMBASE (Elsevier)、CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost)、Web of Science Core Collection和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley)进行了系统综述。两位研究者独立筛选标题和摘要,然后进行全文审查以纳入。提取预先指定的关键和重要结果的数据,并使用分级建议评估,发展和评估(GRADE)方法评估证据。结果:纳入了9项观察性研究,纳入了21417例接受ECLS的患者的数据,其中4368例接受专科姑息治疗。对于所有结果,证据的确定性都很低。两项研究包括一个关键的结果:一项研究发现“平均疼痛”没有差异,另一项研究报告了更多的护理目标笔记,将姑息治疗的患者与未接受姑息治疗的患者进行了比较。五项研究报告,与没有进行姑息治疗咨询的患者相比,接受姑息治疗咨询的患者ECLS持续时间更长。三项研究对接受和未接受姑息治疗的患者的生存率进行了统计比较,发现住院死亡率没有显著差异。结论:很少有研究调查了接受ECLS的患者以患者和家庭为中心的专科姑息治疗结果。专业姑息治疗似乎与死亡率无关,支持姑息治疗可以支持护理目标对话和临终决策的概念,而不会对患者生存产生负面影响。然而,现有数据的局限性排除了专业姑息治疗与其他以患者和家庭为中心的结果之间关系的有意义的结论。需要进一步的研究来阐明专科姑息治疗在这一人群中的最佳作用。
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
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening 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