右美托咪定与咪达唑仑用于临终镇静:DREAMS非盲随机临床试验。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Benjamin Thomas MMed, FRACP, FAChPM , Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM , Kylie Mansfield PhD , Judy Mullan PhD , Wing-Shan Angela Lo MMed, FRACP, FAChPM
{"title":"右美托咪定与咪达唑仑用于临终镇静:DREAMS非盲随机临床试验。","authors":"Benjamin Thomas MMed, FRACP, FAChPM ,&nbsp;Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM ,&nbsp;Kylie Mansfield PhD ,&nbsp;Judy Mullan PhD ,&nbsp;Wing-Shan Angela Lo MMed, FRACP, FAChPM","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.07.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><div>End-of-life distress and delirium are common in palliative care inpatients, often requiring sedatives that diminish interaction. Current practices rely on clinical experience rather than evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To compare the sedative efficacy of subcutaneous dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in managing end-of-life distress while maintaining responsiveness, and to evaluate comparative effect on delirium in the terminal phase.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Single center randomized non-blinded clinical trial (ACTRN12621000052831) of palliative care inpatients in an Australian Local Health District admitted for end-of-life care. Patients received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) or midazolam (0.25 mg/kg/day) via subcutaneous infusion for symptom management during the terminal phase. The primary outcome was responsiveness measured by mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Score-Palliative version (RASS-PAL) compared between treatment arms over the first 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included delirium severity (memorial delirium assessment score [MDAS]) and patient comfort (Patient Comfort Assessment [PCA]).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty two patients were randomized (median age 80 years [IQR 72–88]; 63% male) and included in the primary analysis. Mean RASS-PAL scores showed no significant difference between arms (dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam: day 1: −2.33 vs. −1.90; day 2: −2.44 vs. −2.86; day 3: −2.95 vs. −2.53; all <em>P</em> &gt; 0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed superior early delirium severity scores (day 1 MDAS: 6.5 vs. 8.8, <em>P</em> = 0.05) which did not persist. Protocol withdrawal occurred earlier in the midazolam arm (5 vs. 0 patients on day 1, <em>P</em> = 0.025). Patient comfort scores remained mild (PCA &lt; 3) in both arms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can achieve sedative equivalence with similar RASS-PAL scores. Dexmedetomidine patients experienced lower initial delirium severity scores and fewer early withdrawals in secondary analysis. Current dosing guideline for midazolam may need revising.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":"70 5","pages":"Pages 459-469"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for End-of-Life Sedation: The DREAMS Non-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Thomas MMed, FRACP, FAChPM ,&nbsp;Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM ,&nbsp;Kylie Mansfield PhD ,&nbsp;Judy Mullan PhD ,&nbsp;Wing-Shan Angela Lo MMed, FRACP, FAChPM\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.07.027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Context</h3><div>End-of-life distress and delirium are common in palliative care inpatients, often requiring sedatives that diminish interaction. Current practices rely on clinical experience rather than evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To compare the sedative efficacy of subcutaneous dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in managing end-of-life distress while maintaining responsiveness, and to evaluate comparative effect on delirium in the terminal phase.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Single center randomized non-blinded clinical trial (ACTRN12621000052831) of palliative care inpatients in an Australian Local Health District admitted for end-of-life care. Patients received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) or midazolam (0.25 mg/kg/day) via subcutaneous infusion for symptom management during the terminal phase. The primary outcome was responsiveness measured by mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Score-Palliative version (RASS-PAL) compared between treatment arms over the first 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included delirium severity (memorial delirium assessment score [MDAS]) and patient comfort (Patient Comfort Assessment [PCA]).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty two patients were randomized (median age 80 years [IQR 72–88]; 63% male) and included in the primary analysis. Mean RASS-PAL scores showed no significant difference between arms (dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam: day 1: −2.33 vs. −1.90; day 2: −2.44 vs. −2.86; day 3: −2.95 vs. −2.53; all <em>P</em> &gt; 0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed superior early delirium severity scores (day 1 MDAS: 6.5 vs. 8.8, <em>P</em> = 0.05) which did not persist. Protocol withdrawal occurred earlier in the midazolam arm (5 vs. 0 patients on day 1, <em>P</em> = 0.025). Patient comfort scores remained mild (PCA &lt; 3) in both arms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can achieve sedative equivalence with similar RASS-PAL scores. Dexmedetomidine patients experienced lower initial delirium severity scores and fewer early withdrawals in secondary analysis. Current dosing guideline for midazolam may need revising.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pain and symptom management\",\"volume\":\"70 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 459-469\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392425007511\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392425007511","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

摘要

背景:临终痛苦和谵妄在姑息治疗住院患者中很常见,通常需要镇静剂来减少相互作用。目前的做法依赖于临床经验,而不是证据。目的:比较皮下右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在维持反应性的情况下治疗临终痛苦的镇静效果,并评估对终末期谵妄的比较效果。方法:采用单中心随机非盲法临床试验(ACTRN12621000052831)对澳大利亚某地方卫生区接受临终关怀的姑息治疗住院患者进行研究。患者在终末期接受右美托咪定(0.5µg/kg/h)或咪达唑仑(0.25mg/kg/天)皮下输注用于症状管理。主要结局是反应性,通过比较治疗组前72小时的平均Richmond躁动镇静评分-姑息版本(ras - pal)来测量。次要结局包括谵妄严重程度(纪念谵妄评估评分)和患者舒适度(患者舒适度评估)。结果:随机抽取52例患者(中位年龄80岁[IQR 72-88];63%为男性),并纳入初步分析。平均ras - pal评分在两组间无显著差异(右美托咪定与咪达唑仑:第1天:-2.33 vs -1.90;第二天:-2.44 vs -2.86;第3天:-2.95 vs -2.53;所有P > 0.05)。右美托咪定的早期谵妄严重程度评分优于右美托咪定(第1天MDAS: 6.5 vs 8.8, P=0.05)。咪达唑仑组的方案停药时间较早(第1天5例vs 0例,p=0.025)。结论:右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在ras - pal评分相近的情况下可达到镇静等效。在二次分析中,右美托咪定患者的初始谵妄严重程度评分较低,早期停药较少。目前咪达唑仑的剂量指南可能需要修订。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for End-of-Life Sedation: The DREAMS Non-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

Context

End-of-life distress and delirium are common in palliative care inpatients, often requiring sedatives that diminish interaction. Current practices rely on clinical experience rather than evidence.

Objectives

To compare the sedative efficacy of subcutaneous dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in managing end-of-life distress while maintaining responsiveness, and to evaluate comparative effect on delirium in the terminal phase.

Methods

Single center randomized non-blinded clinical trial (ACTRN12621000052831) of palliative care inpatients in an Australian Local Health District admitted for end-of-life care. Patients received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) or midazolam (0.25 mg/kg/day) via subcutaneous infusion for symptom management during the terminal phase. The primary outcome was responsiveness measured by mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Score-Palliative version (RASS-PAL) compared between treatment arms over the first 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included delirium severity (memorial delirium assessment score [MDAS]) and patient comfort (Patient Comfort Assessment [PCA]).

Results

Fifty two patients were randomized (median age 80 years [IQR 72–88]; 63% male) and included in the primary analysis. Mean RASS-PAL scores showed no significant difference between arms (dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam: day 1: −2.33 vs. −1.90; day 2: −2.44 vs. −2.86; day 3: −2.95 vs. −2.53; all P > 0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed superior early delirium severity scores (day 1 MDAS: 6.5 vs. 8.8, P = 0.05) which did not persist. Protocol withdrawal occurred earlier in the midazolam arm (5 vs. 0 patients on day 1, P = 0.025). Patient comfort scores remained mild (PCA < 3) in both arms.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can achieve sedative equivalence with similar RASS-PAL scores. Dexmedetomidine patients experienced lower initial delirium severity scores and fewer early withdrawals in secondary analysis. Current dosing guideline for midazolam may need revising.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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