Palliative medicine · 2026
Propofol for palliative sedation: A systematic review of clinical outcomes, safety, and ethical implications.
Систематический обзорСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Almeida-Jardim Luís, Reis-Pina Paulo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation is used to relieve refractory suffering in terminally ill patients. Propofol, an intravenous anesthetic, may offer advantages due to its rapid onset and short half-life.
AIM: To evaluate the role of propofol in palliative sedation, focusing on symptom control, sedation depth, survival time, safety, and ethical implications.
DESIGN: Systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025643575; February 6, 2025).
DATA SOURCES: Scopus, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for English-language studies (2005-2024) on propofol use in adult terminally ill patients. Studies comparing propofol with other sedatives or non-sedated controls were included; those involving anesthetic or intensive care settings were excluded. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed. Results were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: Ten non-randomized studies were included (observational, cross-sectional, cohort, case series, and before-and-after designs), mostly of moderate quality, conducted in Europe (n = 7) involving 4072 patients (28,3% received palliative sedation), mainly with cancer. Symptom control was reported in 73%-100% of cases, target sedation depth was achieved in 52%-100%, although outcome definitions and measurement methods varied. Survival ranged from 19 h to 38 days. Propofol was used alone (n = 4) or with other sedatives (n = 6). Respiratory depression was the main safety concern. Ethical issues included absence of explicit consent and rare reports of life-shortening intent.
CONCLUSIONS: Propofol may be considered as a rescue option in selected refractory cases managed by experienced teams; however, given the low to very low certainty of available evidence, findings should be interpreted cautiously and supported by institutional protocols and further prospective research.
AIM: To evaluate the role of propofol in palliative sedation, focusing on symptom control, sedation depth, survival time, safety, and ethical implications.
DESIGN: Systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025643575; February 6, 2025).
DATA SOURCES: Scopus, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for English-language studies (2005-2024) on propofol use in adult terminally ill patients. Studies comparing propofol with other sedatives or non-sedated controls were included; those involving anesthetic or intensive care settings were excluded. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed. Results were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: Ten non-randomized studies were included (observational, cross-sectional, cohort, case series, and before-and-after designs), mostly of moderate quality, conducted in Europe (n = 7) involving 4072 patients (28,3% received palliative sedation), mainly with cancer. Symptom control was reported in 73%-100% of cases, target sedation depth was achieved in 52%-100%, although outcome definitions and measurement methods varied. Survival ranged from 19 h to 38 days. Propofol was used alone (n = 4) or with other sedatives (n = 6). Respiratory depression was the main safety concern. Ethical issues included absence of explicit consent and rare reports of life-shortening intent.
CONCLUSIONS: Propofol may be considered as a rescue option in selected refractory cases managed by experienced teams; however, given the low to very low certainty of available evidence, findings should be interpreted cautiously and supported by institutional protocols and further prospective research.