[The Decision-Making Autonomy of Critical Patients at End of Life From the Perspective of Relational Autonomy: A Case Discussion].

Respect for autonomy is an important principle of medical ethics. Individuals exist within socially embedded networks that include many people, and develop their sense of self and decision-making capacity through network relationships. The concept of relational autonomy has been proposed as a feasible alternative to individual autonomy. Within the framework of relational autonomy, an individual builds up their decision-making capacities through continuous interaction, delivering information and knowledge to the medical team, family, and other important relations while considering their own social and cultural backgrounds within the contexts of trust, caring, and sincere collaboration. The authors of this study integrated the concept of relational autonomy and analyzed the decision-making autonomy of critical patients. When a patient has decision-making capacity, health professionals must provide a trusting, open, and caring communication environment for all important stakeholders to interact, discuss, and assist patients to demonstrate their autonomy. If a patient is unconscious or unable to make decisions, their wishes need to be respected. However, if this patient has not signed a document of intent, the legal representative must respect patient autonomy in accordance with their previous wishes and values. However, the disease prognosis is not easy to predict, the public and health professionals lack knowledge of advance directives, and it is considered taboo to talk about death. Advance directives remain unpopular. Therefore, we hope this article may assist health professionals to demonstrate patient relational autonomy in medical decision situations.

Effects of Lumbar Fusion Surgery with ISOBAR Devices Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery on Pain and Disability in Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-Analysis.

Purpose/Aim: Lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) cause pain and disability and are treated with lumbar fusion surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery with ISOBAR devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery for alleviating LDD-associated pain and disability. Materials and Methods: We performed a literature review and meta-analysis conducted in accordance with Cochrane methodology. The analysis included Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation assessments, Jadad Quality Score evaluations, and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessments. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest, the Airiti Library, and the China Academic Journals Full-text Database for relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies published in English or Chinese between 1997 and 2017. Outcome measures of interest included general pain, lower back pain, and disability. Results: Of the 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 16 examined general pain (802 patients), 5 examined lower back pain (274 patients), and 15 examined disability (734 patients). General pain, lower back pain, and disability scores were significantly lower after lumbar fusion surgery with ISOBAR devices compared to presurgery. Moreover, lumbar fusion surgery with ISOBAR devices was more effective than PLIF for decreasing postoperative disability, although it did not provide any benefit in terms of general pain or lower back pain. Conclusions: Lumbar fusion surgery with ISOBAR devices alleviates general pain, lower back pain, and disability in LDD patients and is superior to PLIF for reducing postoperative disability. Given possible publication bias, we recommend further large-scale studies.

Safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices for hemostasis on sheath removal after a transfemoral artery percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIM: To determine the efficacy of vascular closure devices (VCDs) for hemostasis following transfemoral percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). METHODS: This two-group pre-post-test observational study with purposive sampling enrolled 73 patients between January, 2014 and February, 2015. The patients were allocated to either the intervention (vascular closure devices group, n = 34) or the control group (manual compression [MC] group, n = 39). Questionnaires were used to assess their demographic and clinical characteristics, vascular complications, visual analogue scale score for pain, and discomfort levels. Pain and discomfort were measured before and after the PCI. RESULTS: Vascular complications were observed in 15 (44.1%) VCD patients and 13 (33.3%) MC patients, with no significant between-group difference. However, the VCD patients had a higher relative risk of bruising, hematomas, and need for further treatment. After the PCI, the pain scores and discomfort levels increased significantly in both groups, but the VCD patients had more successful hemostasis, less pain, and less physical and psychological discomfort (lower-limb numbness, shoulder pain, restlessness, and worrying about walking ability, being unable to lift heavy objects in the future, and taking time off from work). CONCLUSION: The VCDs seem to be superior to the MCs, providing more successful hemostasis, less pain and discomfort, and earlier ambulation after a transfemoral PCI. These findings aid clinical nurses in understanding the risk of vascular complications, discomfort, and pain that are associated with VCD use for improving the quality of clinical care and help clinicians in determining the appropriate hemostatic method for patients undergoing a transfemoral PCI, particularly in the Chinese population.

Age and pain as predictors of discomfort in patients undergoing transfemoral percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requires strict bed rest, causing pain and discomfort in patients. However, no studies have investigated this issue. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the predictors of discomfort in transfemoral PCI patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 110 patients from two coronary care units completed questionnaires on demographic and clinical characteristics, visual analogue pain scale, and discomfort. RESULTS: Eight factors predicted overall discomfort: physiologic pain, physiological discomfort, psychological discomfort, analgesic use after sheath removal, hemostasis method, and bed rest duration. Psychological discomfort was associated with age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, analgesic use after sheath removal, successful hemostasis, and hematoma >5 cm. A hierarchical regression model explained 70.5% of the variance in overall discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Age and physiologic pain are major predictors of overall discomfort, especially in patients aged <60 years having high pain sensitivity. Critical care providers should note patients' physiological and psychological issues throughout the PCI process.