Effects of high dose opioids and sedatives on survival in terminally ill cancer patients

Comparing hospice and nonhospice patient survival among patients who die within a three-year window

There is a widespread belief by some health care providers and the wider community that medications used to alleviate symptoms may hasten death in hospice patients. Conversely, there is a clinical impression among hospice providers that hospice might extend some patients' lives. We studied the difference of survival periods of terminally ill patients between those using hospices and not using hospices. We performed retrospective statistical analysis on selected cohorts from large paid claim databases of Medicare beneficiaries for five types of cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. We analyzed the survival of 4493 patients from a sample of 5% of the entire Medicare beneficiary population for 1998-2002 associated with six narrowly defined indicative markers. For the six patient populations combined, the mean survival was 29 days longer for hospice patients than for nonhospice patients. The mean survival period was also significantly longer for the hospice patients with CHF, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and marginally significant for colon cancer (P=0.08). Mean survival was not significantly different (statistically) for hospice vs. nonhospice patients with breast or prostate cancer. Across groups studied, hospice enrollment is not significantly associated with shorter survival, but for certain terminally ill patients, hospice is associated with longer survival times. The claims-based method used death within three years as a surrogate for a clinical judgment to recommend hospice, which means our findings apply to cases where a clinician is very sure the patient will die within three years, and it points to the need to validate these findings.

Palliative Sedation Therapy in the Last Weeks of Life: A Literature Review and Recommendations for Standards

PURPOSE

Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is a controversial issue. There is a need for internationally accepted definitions and standards.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by an international panel of 29 palliative care experts. Draft papers were written on various topics concerning PST. This paper is a summary of the individual papers, written after two meetings and extensive e-mail discussions.

RESULTS

PST is defined as the use of specific sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness, using appropriate drugs carefully titrated to the cessation of symptoms. The initial dose of sedatives should usually be small enough to maintain the patients' ability to communicate periodically. The team looking after the patient should have enough expertise and experience to judge the symptom as refractory. Advice from palliative care specialists is strongly recommended before initiating PST. In the case of continuous and deep PST, the disease should be irreversible and advanced, with death expected within hours to days. Midazolam should be considered first-line choice. The decision whether or not to withhold or withdraw hydration should be discussed separately. Hydration should be offered only if it is considered likely that the benefit will outweigh the harm. PST is distinct from euthanasia because (1) it has the intent to provide symptom relief, (2) it is a proportionate intervention, and (3) the death of the patient is not a criterion for success. PST and its outcome should be carefully monitored and documented.

CONCLUSION

When other treatments fail to relieve suffering in the imminently dying patient, PST is a valid palliative care option.

Unrestricted opiate administration for pain and suffering at the end of life: knowledge and attitudes as barriers to care

BACKGROUND

Pain and symptom management is critical for quality end-of-life care in the hospital. Although guidelines support the use of unrestricted opiate administration to treat refractory pain and suffering in the dying patient, many patients die suffering with symptoms that could have been addressed.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary convenience sample of 381 hospital-based health care providers completed a survey evaluating their understanding of the principles of treating refractory pain and suffering at the end of life in the hospital, knowledge of the institution's policy about how to implement such care, and attitudes about and comfort with such treatment.

RESULTS

Respondents recognized pain and symptom management as a goal of unrestricted opiate use at the end of life, but 12% identified comfort for families or treatment of nonphysical suffering as the principal goal of this modality. Two thirds of respondents felt that unrestricted opiates were used too rarely and 45% felt they were used too late. However, 16% felt uncomfortable administering unrestricted opiates and 21% of physicians and nurses who had used restricted opiates reported having felt pressured to increase dosing of opiates. Knowledge deficits concerning appropriate candidates for unrestricted opiates and the protocol for appropriate implementation were common.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge deficits and attitudinal concerns may hamper the administration of unrestricted opiates for refractory pain and suffering at the end of life in the hospital. Clinician education and clarification of the appropriate use of this modality when there are differences in clinician and family perception of discomfort are needed.

[The last phase in the progressive neoplasic disease: care at the end-of-life, refractory symptoms and sedation]

End-of-life is one of the most stressful phases during course of a neoplasic disease. Frequently, death of patients with cancer comes after a continuous and progressive physical impairment. As death approaches, the medical team might redefine outcomes and treat as priority symptoms and relief suffering. That care encompasses the physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and existential needs of patients and their families. However, symptoms are frequently observed that are intolerable for the patient and which do not respond to usual palliative measures. The intolerable nature and being refractory to treatment indicates to the health-care team, on many occasions, the need for sedation of the patient. The medical team can take comfort in the knowledge that they did their best to provide safe passage to all their patients and that, although they did not always cure them, the patients often were healed.

'Death rattle' after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation: practical and ethical considerations

The noise produced by oscillatory movements of secretions in oropharynx, hypopharynx and trachea during inspiration and expiration in unconscious terminal patients is often described as 'the death rattle'. The reported incidence of death rattle in terminally ill patients varied between six and 92%. It is most commonly reported in patients dying from pulmonary malignancies, primary brain tumours or brain metastases, and predicts death within 48 hours in 75% of the patients. Clinical studies demonstrate that hyoscine hydrobromide is effective at improving symptoms. After withdrawal of artificial ventilation on the intensive care unit, excessive respiratory secretions resulting in rattling breathing, during the last hours of life, is not uncommon. Physicians and nurses experience considerable difficulties and frustrations in treating the death rattle. The distressing experience and negative influence in the bereavement process indicates an ethical demand to treat this symptom from the perspective of others merely than that of the patient. This article provides practical and ethical considerations in the management of this near-death symptom. The fact that relatives were relieved in almost all cases, in which a positive effect was obtained, makes treatment in anticipation of death rattle an ethical demand. In practice, injectable scopolamine is the reference drug for symptomatic treatment of death rattle.

Comparison of Medical Treatments for the Dying in a Hospice and a Geriatric Hospital in Japan

CONTEXT

Most older adults who die in Japan do so in the hospital without receiving hospice or palliative care. While there are some hospices in Japan, little is known about the care they provide to the elderly.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify how the care of dying patients differs in a hospice and a geriatric hospital in Japan.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

A hospice and a geriatric hospital in Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred ninety-one inpatients aged 65 or older.

MAIN OUTCOME

Areas of our interest: (1) gender and age; (2) primary disease(s) and cause of death; (3) observed symptoms/conditions and medical treatment or care conducted within 48 hours prior to death; (4) the actual topics leading to disclosure; and (5) whether or not advance directives had been given.

RESULTS

The X2 test determined that there were statistically significant differences between a geriatric hospital and a hospice, with respect to mean age, diagnoses on admission, primary cause of death, symptoms/conditions, and the practice of medical interventions. However, controlling for patient characteristics and assuming a bivariate distribution between the probabilities of choosing a facility and of undergoing a medical procedure, we found that patients at the hospice were more likely to undergo treatment with opioids, urethral catheter, and oral medicine; such patients were less likely to undergo oxygen inhalation, total parenteral nutrition, and other intravenous drips.

CONCLUSION

The hospice examined in this study was similar to the approach regarding medical treatments observed at the geriatric hospital.

Drugs used to alleviate symptoms with life shortening as a possible side effect: end-of-life care in six European countries

We investigated the drugs used in the alleviation of pain and symptoms (APS) with a possible life-shortening side effect in six European countries' end-of-life care. We sent mail questionnaires to physicians who signed a representative sample of death certificates in each country. APS with a possible life-shortening effect occurred from 19% of all deaths in Italy to 26% in Denmark. Physicians usually administered opioids (from 76% of APS cases in Italy to 96% in The Netherlands), but the type of opioids and administration practice differed markedly between countries. The doses of opioids given in the last 24 hours also varied significantly and were usually lower than 300 mg oral morphine equivalent (from 83% of cases in Belgium to 93% in Sweden). The highly variable results bring into question whether existing guidelines for pain relief were applied appropriately and to what extent unfounded concerns about the possible life-shortening effect of opioids resulted in less than optimal symptom management in end-of-life care.

Continuous deep sedation: physicians' experiences in six European countries

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is sometimes used to treat refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. The aim of this paper was to estimate the frequency and characteristics of CDS in six European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Deaths reported to death registries were sampled and the reporting doctors received a mailed questionnaire about the medical decision making that preceded the death of the patient. The total number of deaths studied was 20,480. The response rate ranged between 44% (Italy) and 75% (The Netherlands). Of all deaths, CDS was applied in 2.5% in Denmark and up to 8.5% in Italy. Of all patients receiving CDS, 35% (Italy) and up to 64% (Denmark and The Netherlands) did not receive artificial nutrition or hydration. Patients who received CDS were more often male, younger than 80 years old, more likely to have had cancer, and died more often in a hospital compared to nonsudden deaths without CDS. The high variability of frequency and characteristics of CDS in the studied European countries points out the importance of medical education and scientific debate on this issue.

The devil's choice: re-thinking law, ethics, and symptom relief in palliative care

Health professionals do not always have the luxury of making "right" choices. This article introduces the "devil's choice" as a metaphor to describe medical choices that arise in circumstances where all the available options are both unwanted and perverse. Using the devil's choice, the paper criticizes the principle of double effect and provides a re-interpretation of the conventional legal and ethical account of symptom relief in palliative care.

Effects of opioids and sedatives on survival in an Australian inpatient palliative care population

AIMS

To assess whether opioid and sedative medication use affects survival (from hospice admission to death) of patients in an Australian inpatient palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND

Retrospective audit. Newcastle Mercy Hospice--a tertiary referral palliative care unit. All patients who died in the hospice between 1 February and 31 December 2000.

METHODS

Length of survival from hospice admission to death, and the median and mean doses of opioids and sedatives used in the last 24 h of life. Comparison of these with published studies outside of Australia.

RESULTS

In this study, the use of opioids, benzodiazepines and haloperidol did not have an association with shortened survival and the only statistical significant finding was an increased survival in patients who were on 300 mg/day or more of oral morphine equivalent (OME). The proportion of patients requiring greater than or equal to 300 mg OME/day (at 28%) was higher than published studies, but the mean dose of 371 mg OME/day was within the range of other studies. The proportion of patients receiving sedatives (94%) was higher than other studies, but the median dose of parenteral midazolam equivalent of 12.5 mg per 24 h was lower than other studies from outside Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no association between the doses of opioids and sedatives on the last day of life and survival (from hospice admission to death) in this population of palliative care patients.

Efficacy and safety of palliative sedation therapy: a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted on specialized palliative care units in Japan

Although palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, its efficacy and safety are not sufficiently understood. The primary aims of this multicenter observational study were to 1) explore the efficacy and safety of palliative sedation therapy, and 2) identify the factors contributing to inadequate symptom relief and complications, using a prospective study design, clearly defined measurement methods, and a consecutive sample from 21 specialized palliative care units in Japan. A sample of 102 consecutive adult cancer patients who received continuous deep sedation were enrolled. Physicians prospectively evaluated the intensity of patient symptoms, communication capacity, respiratory rate, and complications related to sedation. Symptoms were measured on the Agitation Distress Scale, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, and the ad hoc symptom severity scale (0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild and tolerable symptoms, 2 = intolerable symptoms for less than 15 minutes in the previous one hour, and 3 = intolerable symptoms continuing for more than 15 minutes in the previous one hour). Inadequate symptom relief was defined as presence of hyperactive delirium (item 9 of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale >or=2) or grade 2 or 3 symptom intensity 4 hours after sedation. The degree of communication capacity was measured on the Communication Capacity Scale. Palliative sedation therapy succeeded in symptom alleviation in 83% of the cases. Median time elapsed before patients initially had one continuous hour of deep sedation was 60 minutes, but 49% of the patients awakened once after falling into a deeply sedated state. The percentage of patients who were capable of explicit communication decreased from 40% before sedation to 7.1% 4 hours after sedation, and the mean Communication Capacity Score significantly decreased to the level of 15 points (P < 0.001). The respiratory rates did not significantly decrease after sedation (18 +/- 9.0 to 16 +/- 9.4/min, P = 0.62), but respiratory and/or circulatory suppression (respiratory rate <or= 8/min, systolic blood pressure <or= 60mHg, or 50% or more reduction) occurred in 20%, with fatal outcomes in 3.9%. There were no statistically significant differences in patient age, sex, performance status, target symptoms, or classes and initial dose of sedative medications between the patients with adequate and inadequate symptom relief. Respiratory and/or circulatory suppression was significantly more likely to occur in patients receiving sedation for delirium and those with higher levels on the Agitation Distress Scale. Higher dose of midazolam was significantly correlated with younger age, absence of icterus, pre-exposure to midazolam, and length of sedation. Palliative sedation therapy is effective and safe in the majority of terminally ill cancer patients with refractory symptoms. However, a small number of patients experience fatal complications related to sedation. Comparison studies of different sedation regimens are needed to determine the most effective and safe sedation protocol.

Sedation in clinical oncology

The clinical status of terminal cancer patients is very complex and is affected by several severe symptoms, of extended duration, changing with time and of multifactorial origin. When there are no reasonable cancer treatments specifically able to modify the natural history of the disease, symptom control acquires priority and favours the possible better adaptation to the general inexorable deterioration related to the neoplasic progression. Despite the important advances in Palliative Medicine, symptoms are frequently observed that are intolerable for the patient and which do not respond to usual palliative measures. This situation, characterised by rapid deterioration of the patient, very often heralds, implicitly or explicitly, approaching death. The intolerable nature and being refractory to treatment indicates to the health-care team, on many occasions, the need for sedation of the patient. The requirement for sedation of the cancer patient is a situation that does not allow for an attitude of doubt regarding maintenance of the patient in unnecessary suffering for more than a reasonable time. Given the undoubted clinical difficulty in its indication, it is important to have explored at an earlier stage all usual treatments possible and the grade of response, commensurate with the patient's values and desires. Sedation consists of the deliberate administration of drugs in minimum doses and combinations required not only to reduce the consciousness of the patients but also to achieve adequate alleviation of one or more refractory symptoms, and with the prior consent given by the patient explicitly, or implicitly or delegated. Sedation is accepted as ethically warranted when considering the imperative of palliation and its administration and, whenever contemplated, the arguments that justify them are clear recorded in the clinical history. It is not an easy decision for the physician since, traditionally, the training has been "for the fight to save life". Nevertheless, it seems necessary to make some preparations regarding these problems that have a central affect on the clinical oncologist in his daily function.

THE USE OF ???AS-NEEDED??? RANGE ORDERS FOR OPIOID ANALGESICS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE PAIN

The use of "as-needed" or "PRN" range orders for opioid analgesics in the management of acute pain is a common clinical practice. This approach provides flexibility in dosing to meet individual patients' unique analgesic requirements. Range orders enable necessary and safe dose adjustments based on an individual's response to treatment. This paper presents the consensus statement of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing and the American Pain Society on the use of "as-needed" range orders for opioid analgesics in the management of acute pain.

Sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms in the imminently dying: A fine intentional line

There is a continuum of the goals of comfort and function in palliative care that begins with comfort and function being equal priorities and sedation being unacceptable. As disease progresses, the goals and preferences of the patient turn to coping with the loss of function caused by the disease and acceptance of unintentional sedation from the disease, its therapies, or symptom relief interventions. As patients approach the end of life, they may need intentional sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms. Such sedation can be divided into three categories: routine, infrequent, and extraordinary with respect to the frequency, difficulty, and risks involved with the drugs and routes of administration required to induce and maintain a level of sedation that relieves the patient's physical and existential symptoms. Extraordinary sedation with continuous infusions of midazolam, thiopental, and propofol can relieve refractory symptoms in most patients in their final days of life. Palliative care clinicians should become comfortable with the ethical justification and technical expertise needed to provide this essential, extraordinary care to the small but deserving number of patients in whom routine and infrequent sedation does not adequately relieve their suffering.

Alcohol withdrawal as an underrated cause of agitated delirium and terminal restlessness in patients with advanced malignancy

A significant number of patients with terminal cancer experience terminal restlessness or an agitated delirium in the final days of life. Multifactorial etiologies may contribute to agitation and restlessness for any one patient; alcohol withdrawal may be underrated as a contributing factor. The symptoms and signs of alcohol withdrawal--autonomic dysfunction, tremor, anxiety, sleep disturbances, insomnia, and abnormal vital signs--may continue for 6 to 12 months after the cessation of alcohol. We report four patients with terminal restlessness in whom we believe alcohol withdrawal to be a significant causal factor and a fifth patient who subsequently benefited from our team's increased awareness of this clinical problem. Formal assessment of alcohol withdrawal may be of more value in the palliative setting than using the currently accepted assessment instruments. Many of the medications utilized for the treatment of agitated delirium and terminal restlessness in the palliative care setting are effective therapies for alcohol withdrawal.

Family experience with palliative sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients

Symptomatic sedation is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, and could cause significant distress to their family. The aims of this study were to clarify the family experience during palliative sedation therapy, including their satisfaction and distress levels, and the determinants of family dissatisfaction and high-level distress. A multicenter questionnaire survey assessed 280 bereaved families of cancer patients who received sedation in 7 palliative care units in Japan. A total of 185 responses were analyzed(response rate, 73%). The families reported that 69% of the patients were considerably or very distressed before sedation. Fifty-five percent of the patients expressed an explicit wish for sedation, and 89% of families were clearly informed. Overall, 78% of the families were satisfied with the treatment, whereas 25% expressed a high level of emotional distress. The independent determinants of low levels of family satisfaction were: poor symptom palliation after sedation, insufficient information-giving, concerns that sedation might shorten the patient's life, and feelings that there might be other ways to achieve symptom relief The independent determinants of high levels of family distress were: poor symptom palliation after sedation, feeling the burden of responsibility for the decision, feeling unprepared for changes in the patient's condition, feeling that the physicians and nurses were not sufficiently compassionate, and shorter interval to patient death. Palliative sedation therapy was principally performed to relieve severe suffering based on family and patient consent. Although the majority of families were comfortable with this practice, clinicians should minimize family distress by regular monitoring of patient distress and timely modification of sedation protocols, providing sufficient information, sharing the responsibility of the decision, facilitating grief and providing emotional support.

Palliative care in hospitals

Hospital-based palliative care teams have evolved as a natural outgrowth of the modern hospice movement. This article examines why these hospital-based palliative care programs have proliferated, how they typically function, and what data exist as to their effectiveness. Crucial steps necessary for the design and implementation of a successful hospital-based palliative care service also are reviewed.

Considerations of healthcare professionals in medical decision-making about treatment for clinical end-stage cancer patients

In order to determine which considerations healthcare professionals use in decision-making about treatment for inpatients with end-stage cancer, we observed 110 discussions at multidisciplinary meetings at two oncology departments. The discussions concerned 74 patients. Thirty-three of the 110 discussions concerned potentially life-prolonging or life-shortening treatments. The most important decision-making considerations were chance of improvement, patient's treatment wishes, amount of suffering, and the chance of therapy being successful. Discussions resulted in 6 decisions that might shorten life, 10 decisions that might prolong life, and 23 postponements of decisions because of lack of information. These observations confirm that medical interventions with a possible life-prolonging or life-shortening effect are a frequently discussed issue in medical decision-making for end-stage cancer patients in The Netherlands. Before making a decision, healthcare professionals gather extensive information about what gain is to be expected from an intervention. When healthcare professionals establish that a decision would be medically appropriate, the patient's wish will often be an important consideration.

Emotional burden of nurses in palliative sedation therapy

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, and may cause emotional burden for nurses. The primary aims of this study were 1) to clarify the levels of nurses' emotional burden related to sedation, and 2) to identify the factors contributing to the burden levels.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey of 3187 nurses, with a response rate of 82%.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of the nurses (n = 2607) had clinical experience in continuous-deep sedation. Thirty per cent reported that they wanted to leave their current work situation due to sedation-related burden (answering occasionally, often, or always). Also, 12% of the nurses stated that being involved in sedation was a burden, 12% that they felt helpless when patients received sedation, 11% that they would avoid a situation in which they had to perform sedation if possible, and 4% that they felt what they had done was of no value when they performed sedation. The higher nurse-perceived burden was significantly associated with shorter clinical experience, nurse-perceived insufficient time in caring for patients, lack of common understanding of sedation between physicians and nurses, team conference unavailability, frequent experience of conflicting wishes for sedation between patient and family, nurse-perceived inadequate interpersonal skills, belief that it was difficult to diagnose refractory symptoms, belief that sedation would hasten death, belief that sedation was ethically indistinguishable from euthanasia, nurse-perceived inadequate coping with their own grief, and nurses' personal values contradictory to sedation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of nurses felt serious emotional burden related to sedation. To relieve nurses' emotional burden, we encourage 1) management efforts to reduce work overload, 2) a team approach to resolving conflicting opinions, especially between physicians and nurses, 3) co-ordination of early patient-family meetings to clarify their preferred end-of-life care, 4) education and training about sedation specifically focused on interpersonal skills, systematic approaches to diagnosing refractory symptoms, minimum life-threatening potency in sedation, and ethical principals differentiating sedation from euthanasia, and 5) exploring nurses' personal values through the patient-centered principle.

The use of “as-needed” range orders for opioid analgesics in the management of acute pain: a consensus statement of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing and the American Pain Society

The use of "as needed" or "PRN" range orders for opioid analgesics in the management of acute pain is a common clinical practice. This approach provides flexibility in dosing to meet individual patients' unique analgesic requirements. Range orders enable necessary and safe dose adjustments based on an individual's response to treatment. The purpose of this paper is to present the consensus statement of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing and the American Pain Society on the use of "as-needed" range orders for opioid analgesics in the management of acute pain. The implementation of this statement should promote quality pain management through safe medication practices and the appropriate use of range orders for opioid analgesics in acute pain management.

Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001

Empirical data on the rate of euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other end-of-life decisions have greatly contributed to the debate about the role of such practices in modern health care. In the Netherlands, the continuing debate about whether and when physician-assisted dying is acceptable seems to be resulting in a gradual stabilisation of end-of-life practices. We replicated interview and death-certificate studies done in 1990 and 1995 to investigate whether end-of-life practices had altered between 1995 and 2001. Since 1995, the demand for physician-assisted death has not risen among patients and physicians, who seem to have become somewhat more reluctant in their attitude towards this practice.

The use of opioids and sedatives at the end of life

Opioids and sedative drugs are commonly used to control symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. However, it is often assumed that the use of these drugs inevitably results in shortening of life. Ethically, this outcome is excused by reference to the doctrine of double effect. In this review, we assess the evidence for patterns of use of opioids and sedatives in palliative care and examine whether the doctrine of double effect is needed to justify their use. We conclude that patients are more likely to receive higher doses of both opioids and sedatives as they get closer to death. However, there is no evidence that initiation of treatment, or increases in dose of opioids or sedatives, is associated with precipitation of death. Thus, we conclude that the doctrine of double effect is not essential for justification of the use of these drugs, and may act as a deterrent to the provision of good symptom control.

Prognosis in advanced cancer

When considered with other parameters, prognostic factors of survival in far advanced cancer patients are necessary to enable the doctor, the patient, and his or her relative to choose the most suitable clinical management and care setting. Original studies and literature reviews, albeit with methodologic difficulties, have identified the most important prognostic factors as being: CPS, KPS, signs and symptoms relating to nutritional status (i.e., weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, xerostomia), other symptoms (dyspnea, cognitive failure) and some simple biologic parameters (serum albumin level, number of white blood cells and lymphocyte ratio). Some authors have weighed the different impact of the most important prognostic factors and have integrated them into prognostic scores for clinical use. Despite the usefulness of these instruments, however, the communication of a poor prognosis is one of the most difficult moments to face in the relationship between doctor and patient.

Practical guide to palliative sedation

Terminally ill patients want assurance that their symptoms will be controlled as death approaches. Most patients can have a peaceful death with standard palliative care. Some patients approaching death, however, have refractory symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, nausea, and agitated delirium. Palliative sedation (PS), the use of medications to induce sedation in order to control refractory symptoms near death, is a therapeutic option for these patients. The reported frequency of PS use varies greatly, ranging from 5% to 52% of the terminally ill. One concern with PS is its effect on survival. Data suggest that PS does not lead to immediate death, with the median time to death after initiating PS being greater than 1 to 5 days. A number of medications have been used for PS, but midazolam is most commonly reported. PS is distinct from euthanasia because the intent of PS is relief from suffering without death as a required outcome.

Palliative sedation therapy: a review of definitions and usage

Palliative care clinicians are faced with the challenge of managing a multitude of complex symptom combinations in patients for whom they care. Although many symptoms respond favourably to established protocols, others may remain refractory to such intervention. It is within the context of trying to manage such symptoms that the issue of palliative sedation therapy arises. The use of sedation in such circumstances is one that has prompted considerable debate in the palliative care literature. Discourse has been hampered, however, by a lack of consensus regarding the meaning and intent of palliative sedation therapy, when it should be used clinically and how it is to be achieved pharmacologically. There is a dearth of research examining the meanings ascribed to its use from the perspective of patients, families, and health-care providers. This article will provide an overview of these identified issues, and provide suggestions for ways in which palliative sedation therapy might further be examined and understood.