4.5 Article

Change in Physiological Variables in the Last Two Weeks of Life: An Observational Study of Hospitalized Adults With Heart Failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 55, 期 5, 页码 1335-1340

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.01.006

关键词

Terminal care; heart failure; prognosis; clinical decisions

资金

  1. Hull York Medical School, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. Recognition of dying is a difficult task in end-stage heart failure, yet it remains an important clinical skill in providing good palliative care to these patients. Objectives. To use routinely collected data to explore evidence for physiological change in the final two weeks of life in end-stage heart failure. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data from hospital inpatients dying as a result of heart failure during a one-year period in a U.K. hospital. Data were analyzed using descriptive techniques and multilevel modeling. Results. Results were obtained on 81 patients. Respiratory function (evidenced by falling oxygen saturation and rising respiratory rate) deteriorated by a clinically significant amount in the final two weeks of life (P < 0.001). Renal function (evidenced by rising serum urea and creatinine) also demonstrated a clinically significant deterioration over the same period (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). Serum albumin fell over a period of months (P < 0.001). Heart rate and blood pressure did not demonstrate clinically significant change over the same period. Conclusions. Deteriorating respiratory and renal function may indicate imminent dying in heart failure. A fall in serum albumin may signify poor prognosis over a timescale of weeks to months. Conversely, hemodynamic parameters may remain relatively stable in the final days of life and should not be reassuring in end-stage heart failure patients. (C) 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据