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 , Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM , Kylie Mansfield PhD , Judy Mullan PhD , 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> > 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 < 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 , Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM , Kylie Mansfield PhD , Judy Mullan PhD , 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> > 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 < 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。
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.
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.