在被认为心肺复苏无效的患者中,核对表引导的代码状态讨论:一项随机临床试验的分析。

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Armon Arpagaus, Leta Arpagaus, Christoph Becker, Sebastian Gross, Flavio Gössi, Benjamin Bissmann, Samuel Kaspar Zumbrunn, Philipp Schuetz, Jörg D Leuppi, Drahomir Aujesky, Balthasar Hug, Thomas Peters, Stefano Bassetti, Sabina Hunziker
{"title":"在被认为心肺复苏无效的患者中,核对表引导的代码状态讨论:一项随机临床试验的分析。","authors":"Armon Arpagaus, Leta Arpagaus, Christoph Becker, Sebastian Gross, Flavio Gössi, Benjamin Bissmann, Samuel Kaspar Zumbrunn, Philipp Schuetz, Jörg D Leuppi, Drahomir Aujesky, Balthasar Hug, Thomas Peters, Stefano Bassetti, Sabina Hunziker","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.33638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Code status discussions represent a fundamental aspect of advanced care planning and impose major challenges for clinicians in patients for whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is considered futile.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effect of a structured communication approach in code status discussions on decisions regarding code status and various quality-of-care measures for patients in whom resuscitation is considered futile.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The GUIDE trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial, which included patients deemed futile regarding CPR measures. The study was conducted between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2023, in medical inpatients wards across 6 Swiss teaching hospitals. Medical inpatients for whom CPR measures were considered futile based on a prearrest Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score of 14 or higher or a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 7 or higher were eligible. Patients with cognitive or physical condition hindering meaningful conversation were excluded.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Main outcomes included patients' code status decisions as well as preference for mechanical ventilatory assistance and intensive care unit admission. Additional outcomes assessed patients' psychological burden after the discussion measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and physicians' perception regarding the discussions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 177 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [12.0] years; 90 [51%] female) were studied. Overall, the rate of do-not-resuscitate orders was 85%. No significant difference was observed between groups (checklist vs usual care group, 79 of 89 [89%] vs 72 of 88 [82%]; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.75-4.12; P = .20). However, patients in the checklist group were less likely to prefer intensive care unit admission compared with usual care (31 of 89 [36%] vs 44 of 88 [52%]; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99; P = .046). Physicians perceived code status discussions using the checklist less challenging (mean [SD], 3.5 [2.8] vs 4.7 [2.8]; difference, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.35; P = .006). There was no significant difference in patients' psychological reaction to code status discussions measured by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This analysis of a randomized clinical trial found that checklist-guided code status discussions in patients for whom CPR was considered futile reduced their preference for intensive care unit admission while alleviating physicians' challenges during code status discussions without adversely affecting patients' psychosocial burden.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03872154.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 9","pages":"e2533638"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12464790/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Checklist-Guided Code Status Discussions in Patients for Whom Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Is Considered Futile: An Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Armon Arpagaus, Leta Arpagaus, Christoph Becker, Sebastian Gross, Flavio Gössi, Benjamin Bissmann, Samuel Kaspar Zumbrunn, Philipp Schuetz, Jörg D Leuppi, Drahomir Aujesky, Balthasar Hug, Thomas Peters, Stefano Bassetti, Sabina Hunziker\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.33638\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Code status discussions represent a fundamental aspect of advanced care planning and impose major challenges for clinicians in patients for whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is considered futile.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effect of a structured communication approach in code status discussions on decisions regarding code status and various quality-of-care measures for patients in whom resuscitation is considered futile.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The GUIDE trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial, which included patients deemed futile regarding CPR measures. The study was conducted between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2023, in medical inpatients wards across 6 Swiss teaching hospitals. Medical inpatients for whom CPR measures were considered futile based on a prearrest Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score of 14 or higher or a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 7 or higher were eligible. Patients with cognitive or physical condition hindering meaningful conversation were excluded.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Main outcomes included patients' code status decisions as well as preference for mechanical ventilatory assistance and intensive care unit admission. Additional outcomes assessed patients' psychological burden after the discussion measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and physicians' perception regarding the discussions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 177 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [12.0] years; 90 [51%] female) were studied. Overall, the rate of do-not-resuscitate orders was 85%. No significant difference was observed between groups (checklist vs usual care group, 79 of 89 [89%] vs 72 of 88 [82%]; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.75-4.12; P = .20). However, patients in the checklist group were less likely to prefer intensive care unit admission compared with usual care (31 of 89 [36%] vs 44 of 88 [52%]; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99; P = .046). Physicians perceived code status discussions using the checklist less challenging (mean [SD], 3.5 [2.8] vs 4.7 [2.8]; difference, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.35; P = .006). There was no significant difference in patients' psychological reaction to code status discussions measured by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This analysis of a randomized clinical trial found that checklist-guided code status discussions in patients for whom CPR was considered futile reduced their preference for intensive care unit admission while alleviating physicians' challenges during code status discussions without adversely affecting patients' psychosocial burden.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03872154.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"8 9\",\"pages\":\"e2533638\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12464790/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.33638\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.33638","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:代码状态讨论代表了高级护理计划的一个基本方面,并对临床医生在心肺复苏(CPR)被认为无效的患者中提出了重大挑战。目的:研究结构化沟通方法在急救状态讨论中对急救无效患者急救状态和各种护理质量措施决策的影响。设计、环境和参与者:GUIDE试验是一项多中心随机临床试验,包括对CPR措施无效的患者。该研究于2019年6月1日至2023年4月30日在瑞士6家教学医院的住院病房进行。如果住院患者在尝试复苏后的停前良好结果评分为14分或更高,或临床虚弱量表评分为7分或更高,则认为CPR措施无效。认知或身体状况妨碍有意义谈话的患者被排除在外。主要结局和措施:主要结局包括患者的编码状态决定以及对机械呼吸辅助和重症监护病房入住的偏好。通过状态-特质焦虑量表和医院焦虑抑郁量表评估讨论后患者的心理负担,以及医生对讨论的看法。结果:共纳入177例患者,平均[SD]年龄76.3[12.0]岁,女性90例(51%)。总的来说,不进行复苏的比率为85%。两组间无显著差异(检查表组与常规护理组,89例中有79例[89%]vs 88例中有72例[82%];优势比为1.76;95% CI为0.75 ~ 4.12;P = 0.20)。然而,与常规护理相比,检查表组患者更不愿意入住重症监护病房(89例中有31例[36%]vs 88例中有44例[52%];优势比为0.53;95% CI为0.29-0.99;P = 0.046)。医生认为使用检查表进行代码状态讨论不那么具有挑战性(平均[SD], 3.5 [2.8] vs 4.7[2.8];差异,-1.23;95% CI, -2.1至-0.35;P = 0.006)。用状态-特质焦虑量表和医院焦虑抑郁量表测量的患者对编码状态讨论的心理反应无显著差异。结论和相关性:对一项随机临床试验的分析发现,在认为心肺复苏术无效的患者中,检查清单引导的代码状态讨论减少了他们对重症监护病房的偏好,同时减轻了医生在代码状态讨论时的挑战,而不会对患者的社会心理负担产生不利影响。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03872154。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Checklist-Guided Code Status Discussions in Patients for Whom Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Is Considered Futile: An Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Code status discussions represent a fundamental aspect of advanced care planning and impose major challenges for clinicians in patients for whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is considered futile.

Objective: To investigate the effect of a structured communication approach in code status discussions on decisions regarding code status and various quality-of-care measures for patients in whom resuscitation is considered futile.

Design, setting, and participants: The GUIDE trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial, which included patients deemed futile regarding CPR measures. The study was conducted between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2023, in medical inpatients wards across 6 Swiss teaching hospitals. Medical inpatients for whom CPR measures were considered futile based on a prearrest Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score of 14 or higher or a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 7 or higher were eligible. Patients with cognitive or physical condition hindering meaningful conversation were excluded.

Main outcomes and measures: Main outcomes included patients' code status decisions as well as preference for mechanical ventilatory assistance and intensive care unit admission. Additional outcomes assessed patients' psychological burden after the discussion measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and physicians' perception regarding the discussions.

Results: A total of 177 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [12.0] years; 90 [51%] female) were studied. Overall, the rate of do-not-resuscitate orders was 85%. No significant difference was observed between groups (checklist vs usual care group, 79 of 89 [89%] vs 72 of 88 [82%]; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.75-4.12; P = .20). However, patients in the checklist group were less likely to prefer intensive care unit admission compared with usual care (31 of 89 [36%] vs 44 of 88 [52%]; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99; P = .046). Physicians perceived code status discussions using the checklist less challenging (mean [SD], 3.5 [2.8] vs 4.7 [2.8]; difference, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.35; P = .006). There was no significant difference in patients' psychological reaction to code status discussions measured by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale.

Conclusions and relevance: This analysis of a randomized clinical trial found that checklist-guided code status discussions in patients for whom CPR was considered futile reduced their preference for intensive care unit admission while alleviating physicians' challenges during code status discussions without adversely affecting patients' psychosocial burden.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03872154.

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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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