Palliative pharmacological sedation for terminally ill adults

Assessment of the efficacy of palliative sedation in advanced cancer patients by evaluating discomfort levels: a prospective, international, multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation involves the intentional proportional lowering of the level of consciousness in patients with life-limiting disease who are experiencing refractory suffering. The efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be monitored to ensure patient comfort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy using discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, adult patients with advanced malignancies were recruited from hospice units, palliative care units, and hospital wards in five European countries. Health care professionals used proxy observations of discomfort levels (Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type, range 0-27) and sedation/agitation levels (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients), range - 5 to + 4) to evaluate the efficacy of palliative sedation.

RESULTS

In 78 participants, discomfort levels were monitored during palliative sedation. The mean discomfort score before start was 9.4 points (95% CI 8.3-10.5), which showed a significant decrease of 6.0 points (95% CI 4.8-7.1) after start of sedation for the total sedation period. In the multivariable analysis, no significant factors influencing baseline discomfort levels were identified. The discomfort and depth of sedation scores were found to be positively correlated, with an r of 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.82). The internal consistency of the discomfort scale was good (0.83), but the "Noisy breathing" item was less informative of the total discomfort score.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of palliative sedation can be evaluated by measuring discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels. The measurement of discomfort levels might provide a more specific and detailed evaluation of adequate sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

Palliative sedation at the end of life: prevalence, characteristics and possible determinants

BACKGROUND

Palliative Sedation (PS) at the end of life is practiced and perceived differently by health professionals depending on the geographical location in which they provide their health care. Taking into account this heterogeneity, it is necessary to expand knowledge and provide data on this clinical practice in different contexts and countries. On the other hand, the identification of factors associated with PS could help healthcare professionals, at an early stage, to identify patients more likely to require sedation. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and characteristics related to PS in a specialised Palliative Care setting, as well as to analyse factors that could be associated with this procedure.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study including n = 533 patients who died during the study period in a Palliative Care Unit. Clinical and functional (Barthel and Palliative Performance Scale) variables and the level of complexity were collected. For each patient we assessed whether PS had been performed and, if so, we described the type of sedation, continuity and depth, refractory symptoms, medication used, informed consent and place of death. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyse the relationship between several independent variables and PS.

RESULTS

The prevalence of PS was 16.7% (n = 82). Most frequent refractory symptoms were delirium (36.1%), pain (31.9%) and dyspnoea (25%). Factors associated with having a higher odds of PS were having already started treatment with strong opioids (OR = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.16-3.90) and a lower dependency for activities of daily living (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.23-0.70) on admission at PC. Informed consent for sedation was given mainly by representation and only in 19% of cases by the patient himself.

CONCLUSIONS

Early opioid use and functional status act as factors associated with PS, becoming as clinical evaluations of particular interest during the disease trajectory, which could help to improve individualised care plans for patients at the end of life.

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for End-of-Life Sedation and Agitation: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (The DREAMS Trial)

BACKGROUND

Sedation at the end of life is used to relieve distressing symptoms including agitation and delirium. Standard care may include infused benzodiazepines or antipsychotics. These agents often result in deep sedation with loss of interaction with loved ones, which may be distressing.

OBJECTIVE

The DREAMS (Dexmedetomidine for the Reduction of End-of-life Agitation and for optiMised Sedation) trial aimed to compare the sedative and antidelirium effects of the alpha-2 agonist dexmedetomidine, a novel palliative care sedative, compared with midazolam, a benzodiazepine when administered by subcutaneous infusion at the end of life, with doses of both agents targeting lighter, or potentially interactive sedation.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from adult inpatients admitted for end-of-life care under a palliative care team in regional New South Wales, Australia. Inclusion criteria included patients older than 18 years, with a preference for lighter sedation at the end of life. Exclusion criteria included severe cardiac dysfunction (contraindication to dexmedetomidine). Participants consented and were placed on a treatment-pending list. Upon experiencing terminal deterioration, patients were randomized to either arm 1 (dexmedetomidine) or arm 2 (midazolam) as their treatment arm. These treatments were administered by continuous subcutaneous infusion. The level of consciousness and agitation of the patients were measured by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative version and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Score. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative version assessments were performed by both nursing and medical staff, while Memorial Delirium Assessment Score assessments were carried out by medical staff only. Families and patients were asked to complete, as able, a patient comfort assessment form, to gauge perceptions of distress. Data were collected and matched with the breakthrough medication doses administered, along with qualitative comments in the medical record. In addition, the study tracked symptoms and patient functional status that were recorded as part of the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative, a national tracking project for monitoring symptom outcomes in palliative care.

RESULTS

The DREAMS trial was funded in May 2020, approved by the ethics committee in November 2020, and started recruiting participants in May 2021. Data collection commenced in May 2021 and is anticipated to continue until December 2024. Publication of results is anticipated from 2024 to 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for sedative dosing in palliative care for distress and agitation is not robust, with standard care based primarily on clinical experience and not robust scientific evidence. This study is important because it will compare a standard and a novel sedative used in end-of-life treatment. By assessing the potential efficacy and benefits of both, it seeks to optimize the quality of dying by providing targeted sedation that can improve the communication between dying patients and their loved ones.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12621000052831; https://uat.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380889.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/55129.

Palliative Care against Medically Assisted Death? Misunderstanding and Instrumental Objections

CONTEXT

Palliative Care (PC) and Medically Assisted Death (MAD), specifically assisted suicide and euthanasia, are distinct practices characterized by differing objectives, methods, implementation and outcomes. Representatives of PC, including scientific societies or physicians, may, in certain cases, adopt a critical stance towards MAD.

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to explore the underlying reasons for such opposition.

METHODS

To this end, the philosophical underpinnings and legal conditions of PC and MAD will be analyzed.

RESULTS

The ethical and philosophical landscape of PC and MAD leads us to identify, on one hand, the Hippocratic paradigm and, on the other hand, what we call Socratic medicine. From a legal analysis perspective, the presence of intolerable suffering serves as a common ground between the two practices, albeit risking being the subject of misunderstandings and instrumental objections.

CONCLUSION

Preventing an instrumental use of PC in relation to MAD is crucial to enable the respect and the coexistence of the two practices.

Report on palliative sedation medication usage: a survey of palliative care experts in Eight European countries

BACKGROUND

The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania).

METHODS

A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data.

RESULTS

Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary.

Palliative sedation - revised recommendations

Palliative sedation is defined as the monitored use of medications intended to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering in a manner ethically acceptable to the patient, their family, and healthcare providers. In Switzerland, the prevalence of continuous deep sedation until death increased from 4.7% in 2001 to 17.5% of all deceased in 2013, depending on the research method used and on regional variations. Yet, these numbers may be overestimated due to a lack of understanding of the term "continuous deep sedation" by for example respondents of the questionnaire-based study. Inadequately trained and inexperienced healthcare professionals may incorrectly or inappropriately perform palliative sedation due to uncertainties regarding its definitions and practice. Therefore, the expert members of the Bigorio group and the authors of this manuscript believe that national recommendations should be published and made available to healthcare professionals to provide practical, terminological, and ethical guidance. The Bigorio group is the working group of the Swiss Palliative Care Society whose task is to publish clinical recommendations at a national level in Switzerland. These recommendations aim to provide guidance on the most critical questions and issues related to palliative sedation. The Swiss Society of Palliative Care (palliative.ch) mandated a writing board comprising four clinical experts (three physicians and one ethicist) and two national academic experts to revise the 2005 Bigorio guidelines. A first draft was created based on a narrative literature review, which was internally reviewed by five academic institutions (Lausanne, Geneva, Bern, Zürich, and Basel) and the heads of all working groups of the Swiss Society of Palliative Care before finalising the guidelines. The following themes are discussed regarding palliative sedation: (a) definitions and clinical aspects, (b) the decision-making process, (c) communication with patients and families, (d) patient monitoring, (e) pharmacological approaches, and (f) ethical and controversial issues. Palliative sedation must be practised with clinical and ethical accuracy and competence to avoid harm and ethically questionable use. Specialist palliative care teams should be consulted before initiating palliative sedation to avoid overlooking other potential treatment options for the patient's symptoms and suffering.

Practices of and Perspectives on Palliative Sedation Among Palliative Care Physicians in Ontario, Canada: A Mixed-Methods Study

Background

Palliative sedation (PS) is a therapeutic intervention employed to manage severe and refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients at end of life. Inconsistencies in PS practice guidelines coupled with clinician ambiguity have resulted in confusion about how PS is best integrated into practice. Understanding the perspectives, experiences, and practices relating to this modality will provide insight into its clinical application and challenges within the palliative care landscape.

Objective

The aim is to explore the perspectives of palliative care physicians administering PS, including how practitioners define PS, factors influencing decision making about the use of PS, and possible reasons for changes in practice patterns over time.

Methods

A survey (n = 37) and semistructured interviews (n = 23) were conducted with palliative care physicians throughout Ontario. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by two independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated through reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Five key themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization, (2) differing definitions, (3) logistical challenges, (4) perceived "back-up" to Medical Assistance in Dying, and (5) tool of the most responsible physician.

Conclusion

There was significant variability in how participants defined PS and in frequency of use of PS. Physicians described greater ease implementing PS when practicing in palliative care units, with significant barriers faced by individuals providing home-based palliative care or working as consultants on inpatient units. Educational efforts are required about the intent and practice of PS, particularly among inpatient interprofessional teams.

Deep continuous patient-requested sedation until death: a multicentric study

OBJECTIVES

In 2016, a new law was adopted in France granting patients the right, under specific conditions, to continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD). The goal of this study was to measure the frequency of requests for CDSUD from patients in palliative care.

METHODS

The data collected from the medical records of patients in palliative care units (PCU) or followed by palliative care support teams (PCST) in the Rhône-Alpes area, who died after CDSUD, focused on the patient's characteristics, the drugs used (and compliance with regulatory processes).

RESULTS

All 12 PCU and 12 of the 24 PCST were included. Among the 8500 patients followed, 42 (0.5%) requested CDSUD until death. The patients were: 65.7 (SD=13.7) years old, highly educated (69%), had cancer (81%), refractory symptoms (98%) and mostly psychoexistential distress (69%). The request was rejected for 2 (5%) patients and delayed for 31 (74%) patients. After a delay of a mean 8 days, 13 (31%) patients were granted CDSUD. The drug used was midazolam at 115 mg/24 hours (15-480), during a mean of 3 days. PCUs used lower dosages than PCSTs (83 vs 147), with significantly lower initial doses (39 mg vs 132 mg, p=0.01). A life-threatening condition was recorded in 13 cases (31%) and a collegial decision was taken in 25 cases (60%).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the low rate of request and the even lower rate of CDSUD in specialised palliative care. However, the sedation for psychoexistential distress and the lack of procedure records raise ethical questions.

End-Of-Life Care in the Potential Donor after Circulatory Death: A Systematic Review

Background

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is becoming increasingly common, yet little is known about the way potential donors receive end-of-life care.

Purpose

The aims of this systematic review are to describe the current practice in end-of-life care for potential donors and identify metrics that are being used to assess discomfort among these patients.

Research design and Study Sample

This review encompasses published literature between June 1, 2000 and June 31, 2020 of end-of-life care received by potential DCD patients. The population of interest was defined as patients eligible for Maastracht classification III donation after circulatory death for a solid organ transplantation. Outcomes examined included: analgesic or palliative protocols, and surrogates of discomfort (eg dyspnea, agitation).

Results

Among 141 unique articles, 27 studies were included for full review. The primary reason for exclusion was lack of protocol description, or lack of reporting on analgesic medications. No primary research studies specifically examined distress in the DCD eligible population. Numerous professional guidelines were identified. Surveys of critical care practitioners identified concerns regarding the impact of symptom management on hastening the dying process in the DCD population as a potential barrier to end-of-life palliative treatment.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of empirical evidence for end-of-life symptom assessment and management for DCD patients. Key evidence gaps identified for DCD include the need for: i) a multidisciplinary structure of treatment teams and preferred environment for DCD, ii) objective tools for monitoring of distress in this patient population, and iii) evidence guiding the administration of analgesic medications following withdrawal of life sustaining therapy.

A Review of Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Imminent End-of-Life in Individuals With Advanced Illness

Background: World population is not only aging but suffering from serious chronic illnesses, requiring an increasing need for end-of-life care. However, studies show that many healthcare providers involved in the care of dying patients sometimes express challenges in knowing when to stop non-beneficial investigations and futile treatments that tend to prolong undue suffering for the dying person. Objective: To evaluate the clinical signs and symptoms that show end-of-life is imminent in individuals with advanced illness. Design: Narrative review. Methods: Computerized databases, including PubMed, Embase, Medline,CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar were searched from 1992 to 2022 for relevant original papers written in or translated into English language that investigated clinical signs and symptoms of imminent death in individuals with advanced illness. Results: 185 articles identified were carefully reviewed and only those that met the inclusion criteria were included for review. Conclusion: While it is often difficult to predict the timing of death, the ability of healthcare providers to recognize the clinical signs and symptoms of imminent death in terminally-ill individuals may lead to earlier anticipation of care needs and better planning to provide care that is tailored to individual's needs, and ultimately results in better end-of-life care, as well as a better bereavement adjustment experience for the families.

Variation in Benzodiazepine and Antipsychotic Prescribing Among Hospice Agencies

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice. There is minimal evidence to guide prescribing in this population, and little is known about how prescribing varies across hospice agencies.

OBJECTIVE

Examine patient- and hospice agency-level characteristics associated with incident prescribing of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics in hospice.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of a 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries newly enrolled in hospice.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare hospice beneficiaries ≥ 65 years old between 2014 and 2016, restricted to those without benzodiazepine (N = 169,688) or antipsychotic (N = 190,441) prescription fills in the 6 months before hospice enrollment.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was incident (i.e., new) prescribing of a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic. A series of multilevel Cox regression models with random intercepts for hospice agency were fit to examine the association of incident benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescribing with patient and hospice agency characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 91,728 (54.1%) and 58,175 (30.5%) hospice beneficiaries were newly prescribed an incident benzodiazepine or antipsychotic. The prescribing rate of the hospice agency was the strongest predictor of incident prescribing: Compared to patients in bottom-quartile benzodiazepine-prescribing agencies, those in top-quartile agencies were 10.7 times more likely to be prescribed an incident benzodiazepine (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 10.7, 95% CI 10.1-11.3). For incident antipsychotic prescribing, patients in top-quartile agencies were 51.7 times more likely to receive an antipsychotic (AHR 51.7, 95% CI 44.3-60.4) compared to those in the bottom quartile. Results remained consistent accounting for comfort kit prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic prescribing of a hospice agency strongly predicts whether a hospice enrollee is prescribed these medications, exceeding every other patient-level factor. While the appropriate level of prescribing in hospice is unclear, this variation may reflect a strong local prescribing culture across individual hospice agencies.

Evolution of European Resuscitation and End-of-Life Practices from 2015 to 2019: A Survey-Based Comparative Evaluation

BACKGROUND

In concordance with the results of large, observational studies, a 2015 European survey suggested variation in resuscitation/end-of-life practices and emergency care organization across 31 countries. The current survey-based study aimed to comparatively assess the evolution of practices from 2015 to 2019, especially in countries with "low" (i.e., average or lower) 2015 questionnaire domain scores.

METHODS

The 2015 questionnaire with additional consensus-based questions was used. The 2019 questionnaire covered practices/decisions related to end-of-life care (domain A); determinants of access to resuscitation/post-resuscitation care (domain B); diagnosis of death/organ donation (domain C); and emergency care organization (domain D). Responses from 25 countries were analyzed. Positive or negative responses were graded by 1 or 0, respectively. Domain scores were calculated by summation of practice-specific response grades.

RESULTS

Domain A and B scores for 2015 and 2019 were similar. Domain C score decreased by 1 point [95% confidence interval (CI): 1-3; p = 0.02]. Domain D score increased by 2.6 points (95% CI: 0.2-5.0; p = 0.035); this improvement was driven by countries with "low" 2015 domain D scores. In countries with "low" 2015 domain A scores, domain A score increased by 5.5 points (95% CI: 0.4-10.6; p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2019, improvements in emergency care organization and an increasing frequency of end-of-life practices were observed primarily in countries with previously "low" scores in the corresponding domains of the 2015 questionnaire.

Sedatives and Sedation at the End of Life in the Hospital

BACKGROUND

Data on sedation at the end of life (eol) in different medical disciplines are scarce and mostly based on subjective reports. We aimed to assess the use of sedatives with continuous effect in the last week of life and associated factors in different hospital departments, with the aid of objectifiable criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the medical records of patients who died in one of five clinical departments of German hospitals between January 2015 and December 2017 (hematology/oncology [two different departments], neurology, geriatrics, and gynecology). The use of sedatives that are recommended in guidelines for palliative sedation was analyzed, irrespective of indication and treatment intent, with the aid of published definitions of continuous effect and of at least moderately sedating doses. The analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

260/517 (50%) of the patients who died were given sedatives with continuous effect in the last week of life, 53/517 (10%) in at least moderately sedating doses. For 76/260 (29%) patients, no indication was noted. The term "sedation" was used in the medical records of 20/260 (8%) patients. The use of sedatives with continuous effect was significantly associated with the department in which the patient was treated (hematology/oncology II: OR 0.32, 95% CI [0.16: 0.63]; geriatrics: OR 0.23, 95% CI [0.10:0.50]; reference, hematology/oncology I).

CONCLUSION

It was not possible to draw a clear distinction between the use of sedatives for symptom control, without sedating effect or intent to sedate, and intentional sedation to relieve suffering. The observed differences between hospital departments and deviations from recommended practice, e.g. lack of documentation of the indication, warrant further exploration. Moreover, context-specific supportive measures for the use of sedatives and sedation at the end of life should be developed.

How should health care providers inform about palliative sedation? A qualitative study with palliative care professionals

Objective

In Switzerland, palliative sedation consists of using sedatives to relieve terminally ill patients. It is divided into several steps, with one of them consisting of informing patients and relatives about the procedure. In the current recommendations, there is a lack of orientation about how and when this discussion should take place. Hence, we aim to explore perceptions and experiences of palliative care professionals regarding these questions.

Methods

Qualitative semi‐structured interviews with five physicians and five nurses working in specialised palliative care were conducted. They were then analysed with thematic analysis.

Results

Results showed a uniformity around definition, goals and indications of palliative sedation. However, there was a lack of consistency regarding the process of delivering this information to patients and relatives. Finally, some participants strongly opposed the idea of systematically informing patients in specialised palliative care, while others were more divided on this question.

Conclusion

Despite a common understanding of the concept of palliative sedation, there is no standard practice when informing patients on palliative sedation among palliative care professionals. Therefore, this study demonstrates the need for further guidelines on this question and calls for a better understanding and knowledge of palliative sedation among health professionals outside palliative care.

Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS.

SETTINGS

Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study.

PARTICIPANTS

Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS.

RESULTS

There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS.

CONCLUSION

Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

Sedación paliativa en el final de la vida

La sedación paliativa es una práctica clínica ampliamente asumida y aplicada en situaciones que anticipan el final de la vida. No obstante, a pesar de sus beneficios cuando los síntomas refractarios no tienen otra alternativa, en algunas ocasiones la sedación puede ser fuente de numerosos dilemas bioéticos relacionados con el principio de doble efecto que actúa como una de las herramientas base, en el ámbito de la bioética, sobre las que puede sustentarse la licitud de la sedación en el final de la vida.

Palliative Sedation—The Last Resort in Case of Difficult Symptom Control: A Narrative Review and Experiences from Palliative Care in Switzerland

Palliative sedation can be considered as “the last resort” in order to treat unbearable, refractory symptoms or suffering in end-of-life patients. The aim is symptom relief and not to induce death as in the case of euthanasia. The treatment might be one of the most challenging therapeutic options in the field of palliative care, involving both ethical and practical issues. Still, studies have shown that it is a safe and valuable treatment and in general does not shorten the life of the patient. Since patients in Switzerland have the legal option of assisted suicide, palliative sedation is an alternative that has become increasingly important. The use of palliative sedation was reported in 17.5% of all patients admitted to palliative care in Switzerland, making the country of those with the highest use of this treatment. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss ethical and practical issues in palliative sedation, with specific focus on experiences from Switzerland. Indications, ethical considerations, drugs of choice and duration are discussed. Decision making should be based on solid guidelines. When used correctly, palliative sedation is an important and useful tool in palliative care in order to provide good symptom relief.

Family experience of palliative sedation therapy: proportional vs. continuous deep sedation

PURPOSE

Some patients experience intense symptoms refractory to intensive palliative care, and palliative sedation is sometimes used. Palliative sedation may be classified into proportional and continuous deep sedation (CDS). The primary aim of this study was to compare family experience between families of patients who received proportional or CDS.

METHODS

A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted involving bereaved families of cancer patients who received proportional or CDS based on a sedation protocol. Overall evaluation of sedation (satisfaction, family-perceived distress, appropriateness of timing, and patient distress) and 13-item family concerns, good death, satisfaction with care, depression, quality of care, unfinished business, and balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication were measured.

RESULTS

Among the 2120 patients who died, 222 patients received a continuous infusion of midazolam. A sedation protocol was used in 147 patients, and questionnaires were sent to 124 families. A total of 78 responses were finally returned (proportional, 58 vs. CDS, 20). There were no significant differences in the overall evaluation, family concerns, total score of good death, satisfaction, depression, or balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication. On the other hand, some quality of care items, i.e., relationship with medical staff (P < 0.01), physical care by nurses (P = 0.04), and coordination and consistency (P = 0.04), were significantly better in the CDS group than in the proportional sedation group. Family-reported unfinished business was also better in the CDS group, with marginal significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Family experience of CDS was not less favorable than proportional sedation, and actually rated more favorably for some elements of quality of care and unfinished business.

Successful Strategies and Areas of Improvement-Lessons Learned from Design and Conduction of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial in Palliative Care, 'Palliative-D'

Clinical trials in palliative care are challenging to design and conduct. Burden on patients should be minimized, while gatekeeping by professionals and next-of kin needs to be avoided. Clinical deterioration due to disease progression affects attrition unrelated to intervention, and different care settings complicate comparisons and reduce the generalizability of the results. The aim of this review is to provide advice for colleagues planning to perform clinical trials in palliative care based on our own experiences from performing the Palliative-D study and by a thorough literature review on this topic. The Palliative-D study was a double-blind trial with 244 randomized patients comparing the effect of vitamin D₃ to placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer in the palliative phase of their disease trajectory who were enrolled in specialized palliative home care teams. Endpoints were opioid and antibiotic use, fatigue, and QoL. Recruitment was successful, but attrition rates were higher than expected, and we did not reach targeted power. For the 150 patients who completed the study, the completeness of the data was exceptionally high. Rather than patient reported pain, we choose the difference in the mean change in opioid dose between groups after twelve weeks compared to baseline as the primary endpoint. In this paper we discuss challenges in palliative care research based on lessons learned from the "Palliative-D" trial regarding successful strategies as well as areas for improvement.

A case report of posttraumatic stress disorder at the end of life

A case of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the last days of life is presented. It shows insufficient pharmacological therapy and PTSD that was not recognized early enough. We discuss the dilemma caused by the necessity of a long-term psychotherapy and the challenge of little time being left at the end of life. Additionally, a language barrier can be a main reason for misinterpreting symptoms of PTSD.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Cancer: The Importance of Early Palliative Care

In terms of clinical and ethical situations, this narrative compares the COVID‐19 pandemic to the cancer endemic and shares information that may be helpful to improve the management of both future pandemics and cancer care.

Monitoring nociception and awareness during palliative sedation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Providing unawareness and pain relief are core elements of palliative sedation. In addition to clinical scales, nociception and electroencephalogram-based depth of sedation monitoring are used to assess the level of consciousness and analgesia during sedation in intensive care units and during procedures.

AIM

To determine whether reported devices impact the outcomes of palliative sedation.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of research published between January 2000 and December 2020.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Library. All reports describing the use of any monitoring device to assess the level of consciousness or analgesia during palliative sedation were screened for inclusion. Data concerning safety and efficacy were extracted. Patient comfort was the primary outcome of interest. Articles reporting sedation but that did not meet guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care were excluded.

RESULTS

Six reports of five studies were identified. Four of these were case series and two were case reports. Together, these six reports involved a total of 67 sedated adults. Methodological quality was assessed fair to good. Medication regimens were adjusted to bispectral index monitoring values in two studies, which found poor correlation between monitoring values and observational scores. In another study, high nociception index values, representing absence of pain, were used to detect opioid overdosing. Relatives and caregivers found the procedures feasible and acceptable.

The experience of delirium in palliative care settings for patients, family, clinicians and volunteers: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common in palliative care settings and is distressing for patients, their families and clinicians. To develop effective interventions, we need first to understand current delirium care in this setting.

AIM

To understand patient, family, clinicians' and volunteers' experience of delirium and its care in palliative care contexts.

DESIGN

Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018102417).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (2000-2020) for qualitative studies exploring experiences of delirium or its care in specialist palliative care services. Study selection and quality appraisal were independently conducted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 21 papers describing 16 studies were included. In quality appraisal, trustworthiness (rigour of methods used) was assessed as high (n = 5), medium (n = 8) or low (n = 3). Three major themes were identified: interpretations of delirium and their influence on care; clinicians' responses to the suffering of patients with delirium and the roles of the family in delirium care. Nursing staff and other clinicians had limited understanding of delirium as a medical condition with potentially modifiable causes. Practice focused on alleviating patient suffering through person-centred approaches, which could be challenging with delirious patients, and medication use. Treatment decisions were also influenced by the distress of family and clinicians and resource limitations. Family played vital roles in delirium care.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased understanding of non-pharmacological approaches to delirium prevention and management, as well as support for clinicians and families, are important to enable patients' multi-dimensional needs to be met.

Trends in antipsychotic prescribing among long-term care residents receiving hospice care

IMPORTANCE

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes ("CMS National Partnership") focuses on reducing antipsychotic prescribing to long-term care residents. Hospice enrollment is not an exclusionary condition for the antipsychotic quality measure reported by CMS. It is unclear how prescribing in hospice may have been impacted by the initiative.

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the association of the CMS National Partnership with trends in antipsychotic prescribing among long-term care residents in hospice.

DESIGN

Interrupted time-series analysis of a 100% Minimum Data Set sample with linked hospice claims from 2011 to 2017.

SETTING

Long-term care nursing facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults ≥65 residing in long-term care (n = 3,741,379) and limited to those enrolled in hospice (n = 821,610).

MAIN OUTCOME

Quarterly prevalence of antipsychotic and other psychotropic (antianxiety, hypnotic, antidepressant) use among long-term care residents; overall and among residents with dementia, stratified by hospice enrollment.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2017, parallel declines in antipsychotic prescribing were observed among long-term care residents enrolled and not enrolled in hospice (hospice: decline from 26.8% to 18.7%; non-hospice: decline from 23.0% to 14.4%). Following the 2012 CMS National Partnership, quarterly rates of antipsychotic prescribing declined significantly for both residents enrolled and not enrolled in hospice care. Declines in antipsychotic prescribing were greater for residents with dementia, with similar rates among residents enrolled and not enrolled in hospice. Among residents with dementia enrolled in hospice, use of other psychotropic medication classes including antianxiety, antidepressant, and hypnotic use remained relatively stable over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Declines in antipsychotic prescribing during the CMS National Partnership occurred among long-term care residents in hospice, where use may be deemed clinically appropriate. Nursing homes are an important location for the provision of dementia end-of-life care and the drivers of potentially unintended reductions in antipsychotic use merits further investigation.

Prevalence of psychotropic and opioid prescribing among hospice beneficiaries in the United States, 2014-2016

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Psychotropic and opioid medications are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice, but national estimates of prescribing are lacking. Changes in Medicare hospice payment in 2014 provide the first opportunity to examine psychotropic and opioid prescribing among hospice beneficiaries, and the factors associated with use of specific medication classes.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of a 20% sample of traditional and managed Medicare with Part D enrolled in hospice, 2014-2016.

SETTING

Beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 newly enrolled in hospice between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (N = 554,022).

MAIN OUTCOME

Prevalence of psychotropic and opioid medication prescribing by class and factors associated with prescribing.

RESULTS

70.3% of hospice beneficiaries were prescribed a psychotropic and 63.3% were prescribed an opioid. The most common psychotropic classes prescribed were: benzodiazepines (60.6%), antipsychotics (38.3%), antidepressants (18.4%), and antiepileptics (10.2%). Lorazepam (56.4%), morphine (52.8%), and haloperidol (28.6%) were received by the most beneficiaries. Prevalence of any psychotropic and opioid prescription was highest among beneficiaries who were female (76.7%), non-Hispanic white (76.6%), and those with cancer (78.9%). Compared to white beneficiaries, non-Hispanic black beneficiaries were less likely to receive nearly every class of medication, with significantly lower odds of receiving opioids (64.1% vs 57.9%; AOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.77) and benzodiazepines (61.6% vs 52.2%; AOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64-0.68). Differences were seen across hospice diagnosis; those with cancer were more likely to receive opioids, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics but less likely to receive antidepressants and antiepileptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychotropic and opioid medications are frequently prescribed in hospice. Observed variations in prescribing across race and ethnicity may reflect disparities in prescribing as well as patient preferences for care. Further work is important to understand factors driving prescribing given limited studies surrounding medication prescribing in hospice.

How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed.

AIM

To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured.

DESIGN

Integrative review of most recent empirical research.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010-2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness.

RESULTS

Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.

Avoiding the incompatibility of peripheral parenteral nutrition solution and midazolam injection for intravenous sedation

OBJECTIVES

We have observed white turbidity when a midazolam injection is administered from a lateral tube during the administration of a peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) solution. The aim of the current study was to determine how to avoid compound changes when co-administering a midazolam injection and a PPN solution.

METHODS

Midazolam solutions were prepared by diluting a midazolam injection with a 5% glucose intravenous infusion. We examined the formulation of the midazolam injection and a PPN solution at the concentrations used in a clinical setting for changes in appearance, pH, and midazolam content in test tubes and during administration conditions.

RESULTS

With a 1/4.8 dilution of midazolam in undiluted solution, clouding occurred. A strong correlation was revealed between the midazolam content as measured through high-performance liquid chromatography and the mixture's midazolam concentration (R²=0.9918). The capture rate of midazolam infused with PPN solution was 91.0% at a 1/6 dilution, whereas it decreased to <90% at a 1/4.8 dilution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the administration of a midazolam injection solution diluted by ≥6-fold with glucose solution or saline from a side tube during the administration of a PPN solution did not cause changes in composition.

Medicalisation, suffering and control at the end of life: The interplay of deep continuous palliative sedation and assisted dying

Medicalisation is a pervasive feature of contemporary end of life and dying in Western Europe and North America. In this article, we focus on the relationship between two specific aspects of the medicalisation of dying: deep continuous palliative sedation until death and assisted dying. We draw upon a qualitative interview study with 29 health professionals from three jurisdictions where assisted dying is lawful: Flanders, Belgium; Oregon, USA; and Quebec, Canada. Our findings demonstrate that the relationship between palliative sedation and assisted dying is often perceived as fluid and complex. This is inconsistent with current laws as well as with ethical and clinical guidelines according to which the two are categorically distinct. The article contributes to the literature examining health professionals’ opinions and experiences. Moreover, our findings inform a discussion about emergent themes: suffering, timing, autonomy and control – which appear central in the wider discourse in which both palliative sedation and assisted dying are situated, and which in turn relate to the wider ideas about what constitutes a ‘good death’.

Unanswered questions and future direction in the management of terminal breathlessness in patients with cancer

Breathlessness is among the most common and deteriorating symptoms in patients with advanced cancer, which may worsen towards the end of life. Breathlessness in patients with estimated life expectancy of weeks to days has unique clinical features: it tends to worsen rapidly over days to hours as death approaches often despite current symptom control measures. Breathlessness in patients during the last weeks to days of life can be called ‘terminal breathlessness’. While evidence has accumulated for the management of breathlessness in patients with cancer who are not dying, such evidence may not be fully applied to terminal breathlessness. Only a few studies have investigated the best practice of terminal breathlessness in patients with cancer. In this paper, we summarise the current evidence for the management of terminal breathlessness, and propose future directions of clinical research.

Pain management during the withholding and withdrawal of life support in critically ill patients at the end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To review and summarize the most frequent medications and dosages used during withholding and withdrawal of life-prolonging measures in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Virtual Health Library from inception through March 2019. We considered any study evaluating pharmaceutical interventions for pain management during the withholding or withdrawing of life support in adult critically ill patients at the end-of-life. Two independent investigators performed the screening and data extraction. We pooled data on utilization rate of analgesic and sedative drugs and summarized the dosing between the moment prior to withholding or withdrawal of life support and the moment before death.

Results

Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States (38%), Canada (31%), and the Netherlands (31%). Eleven studies were single-cohort and twelve had a Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score of less than 7. The mean age of the patients ranged from 59 to 71 years, 59–100% were mechanically ventilated, and 47–100% of the patients underwent life support withdrawal. The most commonly used opioid and sedative were morphine [utilization rate 60% (95% CI 48–71%)] and midazolam [utilization rate 28% (95% CI 23–32%)], respectively. Doses increased during the end-of-life process (pooled mean increase in the dose of morphine: 2.6 mg/h, 95% CI 1.2–4).

Conclusions

Pain control is centered on opioids and adjunctive benzodiazepines, with dosages exceeding those recommended by guidelines. Despite consistency among guidelines, there is significant heterogeneity among practices in end-of-life care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06139-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Impact of Aliviado Dementia Care-Hospice Edition Training Program on Hospice Staff's Dementia Symptom Knowledge

CONTEXT

As the aging population grows, the incidence of dementia continues to increase substantially. However, the lack of a significant geriatric health care workforce as well as little dementia training among generalist health care workers leads to suboptimal care for persons living with dementia (PLWD). In particular, few evidence-based interventions exist to improve the quality of dementia care among hospice interdisciplinary teams caring for PLWD. Aliviado Dementia Care-Hospice Edition is a quality assurance and performance improvement program that includes training, mentoring, and workflow enhancements, which aims to improve quality of hospice care provided to PLWD and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the Aliviado Dementia Care program in increasing dementia symptom knowledge of hospice interdisciplinary team members.

METHODS

About 53 hospice team members from two diverse hospices, consisting of social workers, chaplains, physicians, and nurses, participated in the Aliviado training program. In this prepost trial, 39 participants completed the Dementia Symptom Knowledge Assessment before and after completion of the program.

RESULTS

Paired t-tests showed significant differences before and after Aliviado training in depression knowledge and confidence, as well as behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) knowledge, confidence, and interventions. The greatest percent change increases were in depression (15.2%) and BPSD (13.3%) confidence as well as BPSD interventions (18.4%). Qualitative feedback consistently emphasized that trainees could now effectively assess their patients for specific symptoms such as pain and agitation.

CONCLUSION

Aliviado is an evidence-based system-level intervention that improves clinical knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in treating PLWD enrolled in hospice.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life in children with cancer: experience at a single center in Japan

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is used to alleviate unbearable and otherwise refractory symptoms in patients dying of cancer. No data are available concerning CDS in children from Japan to date. This study primarily aimed to describe experience in CDS in child cancer patients at Kyoto University Hospital. The secondary aims were to identify the characteristics of patients who received CDS, and to assess ability in daily living at the end of life. A retrospective chart review was performed for child cancer patients who died at the institute between 2008 and 2017. The data of 35 patients were analyzed. Nine (26%) patients had received CDS. Indications for CDS were dyspnea (56%), agitation (22%), seizures (22%), and pain (11%). Midazolam was used in all nine cases. In eight (89%) patients, opioids were also prescribed. In seven (78%) patients, CDS was performed for < 48 hours. In all nine cases, consent was obtained from the parent(s) but not from the children. CDS was more likely in patients with solid tumors (p = 0.018) and those who had received no respite sedation (p = 0.002). Patients without central nervous system symptoms tended to maintain their capacity for oral intake and verbal communication until a few days prior to death. This is the first report on CDS in child cancer patients from Japan. In the CDS literature, cross-study differences are evident for incidence, target symptoms, duration, and the decision-making process. Further international discussion is warranted concerning indications for CDS and the decision-making process.

Midazolam sedation in palliative medicine: retrospective study in a French center for cancer control

BACKGROUND

French legislation about sedation in palliative medicine evolved in 2016 with the introduction of a right to deep and continuous sedation, maintained until death. The objective was to describe midazolam sedation at the COL (Centre Oscar Lambret [Oscar Lambret Center], French regional center for cancer control), in order to establish a current overview before the final legislative changes.

METHODS

Descriptive, retrospective and single-center study, concerning major patients in palliative care hospitalized from 01/01/2014 to 12/31/2015, who had been sedated by midazolam. The proven sedations (explicitly named) and the probable sedations were distinguished.

RESULTS

A total of 54 sedations were identified (48 proven, 6 probable). Refractory symptoms accounted for 48.1% of indications, complications with immediate risk of death 46.3%, existential suffering 5.6%. Titration was performed in 44.4% of cases. Sedation was continuous until death for 98.1% of the cases. Probable sedation had a higher failure rate than proven sedation. Significant differences existed for the palliative care unit compared to other units regarding information to the patient, their consent, anticipation, mention by correspondence and carrying out titrations. When patients had already been treated with midazolam, the induction doses, initial maintenance doses, and doses at the time of death were significantly higher. For those receiving opioids, the maintenance dose at the time of death was higher. No comparison found a difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

After a sufficient follow-up has enabled teams to familiarize with this new legislation, reflection on sedation should be conducted to adapt to final recommendations.

Association between continuous deep sedation and survival time in terminally ill cancer patients

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to evaluate the association between CDS and survival time using the likelihood of receiving CDS to select a matched non-CDS group through an accurate measurement of survival time based on initiation of CDS.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using an electronic database to collect data regarding terminally ill cancer patients admitted to a specialized palliative care unit from January 2012 to December 2016. We first used a Cox proportional hazard model with receiving CDS as the outcome to identify individuals with the highest plausibility of receiving CDS among the non-CDS group (n = 663). We then performed a multiple regression analysis comparing the CDS group (n = 311) and weighted non-CDS group (n = 311), using initiation of CDS (actual for the CDS group; estimated for the non-CDS group) as the starting time-point for measuring survival time.

RESULTS

Approximately 32% of participants received CDS. The most common indications were delirium or agitation (58.2%), intractable pain (28.9%), and dyspnea (10.6%). Final multiple regression analysis revealed that survival time was longer in the CDS group than in the non-CDS group (Exp(β), 1.41; P < 0.001). Longer survival with CDS was more prominent in females, patients with renal dysfunction, and individuals with low C-reactive protein (CRP) or ferritin, compared with their counterpart subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

CDS was not associated with shortened survival; instead, it was associated with longer survival in our terminally ill cancer patients. Further studies in other populations are required to confirm or refute these findings.

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.

Palliative care specialists in hospice and hospital/community teams predominantly use low doses of sedative medication at the end of life for patient comfort rather than sedation: Findings from focus groups and patient records for I-CAN-CARE

BACKGROUND

Little research has explored the detail of practice when using sedative medications at the end of life. One work package of the I-CAN-CARE research programme investigates this in UK palliative care.

AIMS

To investigate current practices when using sedative medication at the end of life in London, UK, by (1) qualitatively exploring the understandings of palliative care clinicians, (2) examining documented sedative use in patient records and (3) comparing findings from both investigations.

DESIGN

We conducted focus groups with experienced palliative care physicians and nurses, and simultaneously reviewed deceased patient records.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In total, 10 physicians and 17 senior nurses in London hospice or hospital/community palliative care took part in eight focus groups. Simultaneously, 50 patient records for people who received continuous sedation at end of life in the hospice and hospital were retrieved and reviewed.

RESULTS

Focus group participants all said that they used sedative medication chiefly for managing agitation or distress; selecting drugs and dosages as appropriate for patients' individual needs; and aiming to use the lowest possible dosages for patients to be 'comfortable', 'calm' or 'relaxed'. None used structured observational tools to assess sedative effects, strongly preferring clinical observation and judgement. The patient records' review corroborated these qualitative findings, with the median continuous dose of midazolam administered being 10 mg/24 h (range: 0.4-69.5 mg/24 h).

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice in these London settings broadly aligns with the European Association for Palliative Care framework for using sedation at the end of life, but lacks any objective monitoring of depth of sedation. Our follow-on study explores the utility and feasibility of objectively monitoring sedation in practice.

The Role of Palliative Care in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

In the last few years, important changes have occurred in the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of patients that were admitted to cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Care has shifted from acute coronary syndrome patients towards elderly patients, with a high prevalence of non-ischemic cardiovascular diseases and a high burden of non-cardiovascular comorbid conditions: both increase the susceptibility of patients to developing life-threatening critical conditions. These conditions are associated with a significant symptom burden and mortality rate and an increased length of stay. In this context, palliative care programs, including withholding/withdrawing life support treatments or the deactivation of implanted cardiac devices, are frequently needed, according to the specific guidelines of scientific societies. However, the implementation of these recommendations in clinical practice is still inconsistent. In this review, we analyze the reasons for this gap and the main cultural changes that are required to improve the care of patients with advanced illness.

Reflections on palliative sedation

'Palliation sedation' is a widely used term to describe the intentional administration of sedatives to reduce a dying person's consciousness to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms. Research studies generally focus on either 'continuous sedation until death' or 'continuous deep sedation'. It is not always clear whether instances of secondary sedation (i.e. caused by specific symptom management) have been excluded. Continuous deep sedation is controversial because it ends a person's 'biographical life' (the ability to interact meaningfully with other people) and shortens 'biological life'. Ethically, continuous deep sedation is an exceptional last resort measure. Studies suggest that continuous deep sedation has become 'normalized' in some countries and some palliative care services. Of concern is the dissonance between guidelines and practice. At the extreme, there are reports of continuous deep sedation which are best described as non-voluntary (unrequested) euthanasia. Other major concerns relate to its use for solely non-physical (existential) reasons, the under-diagnosis of delirium and its mistreatment, and not appreciating that unresponsiveness is not the same as unconsciousness (unawareness). Ideally, a multiprofessional palliative care team should be involved before proceeding to continuous deep sedation. Good palliative care greatly reduces the need for continuous deep sedation.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Palliative Care Setting

Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome arising from acute global brain dysfunction, and is prevalent in up to 42% of patients admitted to palliative care inpatient units. The symptoms of delirium and its associated communicative impediment invariably generate high levels of patient and family distress. Furthermore, delirium is associated with significant patient morbidity and increased mortality in many patient populations, especially palliative care where refractory delirium is common in the dying phase. As the clinical diagnosis of delirium is frequently missed by the healthcare team, the case for regular screening is arguably very compelling. Depending on its precipitating factors, a delirium episode is often reversible, especially in the earlier stages of a life-threatening illness. Until recently, antipsychotics have played a pivotal role in delirium management, but this role now requires critical re-evaluation in light of recent research that failed to demonstrate their efficacy in mild- to moderate-severity delirium occurring in palliative care patients. Non-pharmacological strategies for the management of delirium play a fundamental role and should be optimized through the collective efforts of the whole interprofessional team. Refractory agitated delirium in the last days or weeks of life may require the use of pharmacological sedation to ameliorate the distress of patients, which is invariably juxtaposed with increasing distress of family members. Further evaluation of multicomponent strategies for delirium prevention and treatment in the palliative care patient population is urgently required.

Palliative Sedation for the Terminally Ill Patient

Palliative sedation (PS) is performed in the terminally ill patient to manage one or more refractory symptoms. Proportional PS, which means that drugs can be titrated to the minimum effective dose, is the form most widely used. From a quarter to a third of all terminally ill patients undergo PS, with a quarter of these requiring continuous deep sedation. The prevalence of PS varies according to the care setting and case mix. The most frequent refractory physical symptoms are delirium and dyspnea, but PS is also considered for existential suffering or psychological distress, which is an extremely difficult and delicate issue to deal with. Active consensus from the patient and advanced care planning is recommended for PS. The decision-making process concerning the continuation or withdrawal of other treatments is not the same as that used for PS. The practice differs totally from euthanasia in its intentions, procedures, and results. The most widely used drugs are midazolam and haloperidol for refractory delirium, but chlorpromazine and other neuroleptics are also effective. In conclusion, some patients experience refractory symptoms during the last hours or days of life and PS is a medical intervention aimed at managing this unbearable suffering. It does not have a detrimental effect on survival.

Continuous Deep Sedation Until Death-a Swiss Death Certificate Study

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, the number of patients continuously deeply sedated until death increased up to fourfold. The reasons for this increase remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To identify socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of sedated patients, and concurrent possibly life-shortening medical end-of-life decisions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional death certificate study in German-speaking Switzerland in 2001 and 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Non-sudden and expected deaths (2001: N = 2281, 2013: N = 2256) based on a random sample of death certificates and followed by an anonymous survey on end-of-life practices among attending physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

Physicians' reported proportion of patients continuously deeply sedated until death, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and possibly life-shortening medical end-of life decisions.

KEY RESULTS

In 2013, physicians sedated four times more patients continuously until death (6.7% in 2001; 24.5.5% in 2013). Four out of five sedated patients died in hospitals, outside specialized palliative care units, or in nursing homes. Sedation was more likely among patients younger than 65 (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.2) and those dying in specialized palliative care (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.8) or in hospitals (1.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3). Forgoing life-prolonging treatment with the explicit intention to hasten or not to postpone death combined with intensified alleviation of symptoms was very strongly associated with continuous deep sedation (OR 6.8, 95% CI 4.7 to 9.8).

CONCLUSIONS

In Swiss clinical practice, continuously deeply sedated patients predominantly died outside specialized palliative care. The increasing trend over time appears to be related to changes in medical end-of-life practice rather than to patient's clinical characteristics.

Continuous palliative sedation for patients with advanced cancer at a tertiary care cancer center

Background

Palliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center.

Methods

We retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481–15).

Results

During the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n = 203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p < 0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p = 0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range – IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9–3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p < 0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n = 25) of sedated patients.

Conclusions

PS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-017-0264-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of two types of palliative sedation therapy defined using intervention protocols: proportional vs. deep sedation

PURPOSE

This study investigated the effect of two types of palliative sedation defined using intervention protocols: proportional and deep sedation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of consecutive cancer patients who received the continuous infusion of midazolam in a palliative care unit. Attending physicians chose the sedation protocol based on each patient's wish, symptom severity, prognosis, and refractoriness of suffering. The primary endpoint was a treatment goal achievement at 4 h: in proportional sedation, the achievement of symptom relief (Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) ≤ 1) and absence of agitation (modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤ 0) and in deep sedation, the achievement of deep sedation (RASS ≤ - 4). Secondary endpoints included mean scores of STAS and RASS, deep sedation as a result, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 398 patients who died during the period, 32 received proportional and 18 received deep sedation. The treatment goal achievement rate was 68.8% (22/32, 95% confidence interval 52.7-84.9) in the proportional sedation group vs. 83.3% (15/18, 66.1-100) in the deep sedation group. STAS decreased from 3.8 to 0.8 with proportional sedation at 4 h vs. 3.7 to 0.3 with deep sedation; RASS decreased from + 1.2 to - 1.7 vs. + 1.4 to - 3.7, respectively. Deep sedation was needed as a result in 31.3% (10/32) of the proportional sedation group. No fatal events that were considered as probably or definitely related to the intervention occurred.

CONCLUSION

The two types of intervention protocol well reflected the treatment intention and expected outcomes. Further, large-scale cohort studies are promising.

¿La sedación paliativa acorta la vida de los pacientes?

El respeto por la vida humana es central en el acto médico. En pacientes terminales, los síntomas refractarios son nicho de sedación paliativa. Este artículo identifica, a partir de evidencia científica, la sobrevida en pacientes con sedación paliativa en comparación con aquellos que no la recibieron. Se realizó́ búsqueda de revisiones sistemáticas de 2000 a 2016, se analizaron metodológicamente y se compararon los resultados. Por razones metodológicas no se pudo realizar meta-análisis. Se concluye que la sedación paliativa terminal no acorta la vida de los pacientes. Se reformula la aplicación del principio de doble efecto relacionado con el posible acortamiento de la vida; el mal no deseado es la pérdida de la conciencia.

Advance Directives, Hospitalization, and Survival Among Advanced Cancer Patients with Delirium Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p < .0001 each).

CONCLUSION

Delirium assessed by either CAM or MDAS was associated with worse survival and more hospitalization in patients with advanced cancer in an oncologic ED. Many advanced cancer patients with delirium in ED lack advance directives. Delirium should be assessed regularly and should trigger discussion of goals of care and advance directives.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Delirium is a devastating condition among advanced cancer patients. Early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED) should improve management of this life-threatening condition. However, delirium is frequently missed by ED clinicians, and the outcome of patients with delirium is unknown. This study finds that delirium assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method or the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale is associated with poor survival and more hospitalization among advanced cancer patients visiting the ED of a major cancer center, many of whom lack advance directives. Therefore, delirium in ED patients with cancer should trigger discussion about advance directives.

Palliative care and end-of-life care for polypathological patients

Patients with advanced chronic diseases receive fragmented care, which entails high resource consumption and a poor quality of life. Uncertainty in the prognosis and scarce investigation into the importance of symptomatic control in this patient group hinders a proper therapeutic approach. Palliative care teams optimise the use of resources through comprehensive patient care, the optimization of the patient's environment, communication, the preparation of early care plans and the creation of coordinated healthcare circuits, which improve the quality of the patient's care in advanced stages of the disease. In the end-of-life phase, the therapeutic approach is focused on symptomatic control, selecting treatments according to the cause, comorbidities and the patient's wishes. To control refractory symptoms, palliative sedation is considered an indispensable option.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Palliative Care Setting

Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome arising from acute global brain dysfunction, and is prevalent in up to 42% of patients admitted to palliative care inpatient units. The symptoms of delirium and its associated communicative impediment invariably generate high levels of patient and family distress. Furthermore, delirium is associated with significant patient morbidity and increased mortality in many patient populations, especially palliative care where refractory delirium is common in the dying phase. As the clinical diagnosis of delirium is frequently missed by the healthcare team, the case for regular screening is arguably very compelling. Depending on its precipitating factors, a delirium episode is often reversible, especially in the earlier stages of a life-threatening illness. Until recently, antipsychotics have played a pivotal role in delirium management, but this role now requires critical re-evaluation in light of recent research that failed to demonstrate their efficacy in mild- to moderate-severity delirium occurring in palliative care patients. Non-pharmacological strategies for the management of delirium play a fundamental role and should be optimized through the collective efforts of the whole interprofessional team. Refractory agitated delirium in the last days or weeks of life may require the use of pharmacological sedation to ameliorate the distress of patients, which is invariably juxtaposed with increasing distress of family members. Further evaluation of multicomponent strategies for delirium prevention and treatment in the palliative care patient population is urgently required.

The impact of the inpatient practice of continuous deep sedation until death on healthcare professionals' emotional well-being: a systematic review

Background

The practice of continuous deep sedation is a challenging clinical intervention with demanding clinical and ethical decision-making. Though current research indicates that healthcare professionals’ involvement in such decisions is associated with emotional stress, little is known about sedation-related emotional burden. This study aims to systematically review the evidence on the impact of the inpatient practice of continuous deep sedation until death on healthcare professionals’ emotional well-being.

Methods

A systematic review of literature published between January 1990 and October 2016 was performed following a predefined protocol. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched using search terms within “end-of-life care”, “sedation”, and “emotional well-being”. Dissertations and reference lists were screened by hand. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We abstracted measures of psychological outcomes, which were related to the practice of continuous deep sedation until death, including emotional well-being, stress and exhaustion. We used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence.

Results

Three studies remained out of 528 publications identified. A total of 3′900 healthcare professionals (82% nurses, 18% physicians) from Japan (n = 3384) and the Netherlands (n = 16) were included. The prevalence of sedation-related burden in nurses varied from 11 to 26%, depending on outcome measure. Physicians showed medium levels of emotional exhaustion and low levels of depersonalization. Common clinical concerns contributing to professionals’ burden were diagnosing refractory symptoms and sedation in the context of possibly life-shortening decisions. Non-clinical challenges included conflicting wishes between patients and families, disagreements within the care team, and insufficient professionals’ skills and coping. Due to the limited results and heterogeneity in outcome measure, the GRADE ratings for the quality of evidence were low.

Conclusions

Current evidence does not suggest that practicing continuous deep sedation is generally associated with lower emotional well-being of healthcare professionals. Higher emotional burden seems more likely when professionals struggled with clinical and ethical justifications for continuous deep sedation. This appeared to be in part a function of clinical experience. Further research is needed to strengthen this evidence, as it is likely that additional studies will change the current evidence base.