Treatment of delirium in a terminally ill patient

Delirium in Palliative Care

Simple Summary

Delirium is a generalized cerebral dysfunction that occurs frequently near the end of life. In palliative care, delirium is frequently a sign of impending death; it is distressing for patients, families, and caregivers; and the goals of management, assessment, and treatment are controversial. We provide an update on these topics mainly focusing on patients with cancer.

Abstract

Delirium, a widespread neuropsychiatric disorder in patients with terminal diseases, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, profoundly impacting patients, their families, and caregivers. Although frequently missed, the effective recognition of delirium demands attention and commitment. Reversibility is frequently not achievable. Non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions are commonly used but largely unproven. Palliative sedation, although controversial, should be considered for refractory delirium. Psychological assistance should be available to patients and their families at all times.

Sedation for Delirium and Other Symptoms in Terminally Ill Patients in Edmonton

The use of sedation and the management of delirium and other difficult symptoms in terminally ill patients in Edmonton has been reported previously. The focus of this study was to assess the prevalence in the Edmonton region of difficult symptoms requiring sedation at the end of life. Data were collected for 50 consecutive patients at each of (a) the tertiary palliative care unit, (b) the consulting palliative care program at the Royal Alexandra Hospital (acute care), and (c) three hospice inpatient units in the city. Patients on the tertiary palliative care unit were significantly younger. Assessments confirmed the more problematic physical and psychosocial issues of patients in the tertiary palliative care unit. These patients had more difficult pain syndromes and required significantly higher doses of daily opioids. Approximately 80% of patients in all three settings developed delirium prior to death. Pharmacological management of this problem was needed by 40% in the acute care setting, and by 80% in the tertiary palliative care unit. The patients sedated varied from 4% in the hospice setting to 10% in the tertiary palliative care unit. Of the 150 patients, nine were sedated for delirium, one for dyspnea. The prevalence of delirium and other symptoms requiring sedation in our area is relatively low compared to others reported in the literature. Demographic variability between the three Edmonton settings highlights the need for caution in comparing results of different palliative care groups. It is possible that some variability in the use of sedation internationally is due to cultural differences. The infrequent deliberate use of sedation in Edmonton suggests that improved management has resulted in fewer distressing symptoms at the end of life. This is of benefit to patients and to family members who are with them during this time.

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

The efficacy of antipsychotics for prolonged delirium with renal dysfunction

AIM

Delirium is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. To identify predictors influencing outcomes, we retrospectively examined the characteristics of inpatients with delirium who required psychiatric medication during hospitalization.

METHODS

We extracted all new inpatients (n=523) consulted for psychiatric symptoms at Fukushima Medical University Hospital between October 2011 and September 2013. We selected 203 inpatients with delirium diagnosed by psychiatrists. We analyzed data from 177 inpatients with delirium who received psychiatric medication. We defined an "early improvement group" in which delirium resolved in ≤3 days after starting psychiatric medication, and a "prolonged group" with delirium lasting for >3 days. Among the 83 inpatients with renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m²), we defined an "early improvement group with renal dysfunction" in which delirium resolved in ≤3 days after starting psychiatric medication and a "prolonged group with renal dysfunction" with delirium lasting for >3 days. We then examined differences between groups for different categorical variables.

RESULTS

Dose of antipsychotic medication at end point was significantly lower in the prolonged group with renal dysfunction than in the early improvement group with renal dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that maintaining a sufficient dose of antipsychotics from an early stage may prevent prolongation of delirium even in inpatients with renal dysfunction.

Clarifying delirium management: practical, evidenced-based, expert recommendations for clinical practice

Delirium is highly prevalent in those with serious or advanced medical illnesses. It is associated with many adverse consequences, including significant patient, family, and health care provider distress. This article suggests a novel approach to delirium assessment and management and provides useful, practical guidance for clinicians based on a complete review of the existing literature and the expert clinical opinion of the authors and their colleagues, derived from over a decade of collective bedside experience. Comprehensive assessment includes careful description of observed symptoms, signs, and behaviors; and an understanding of the patient's situation, including primary diagnosis, associated comorbidities, functional status, and prognosis. The importance of incorporating goals of care for the patient and family is discussed. The concepts of potential reversibility versus irreversible delirium and delirium subtype are proffered, with a description of how diagnostic and management strategies follow from these concepts. Pharmacological interventions that provide rapid, effective, and safe relief are presented. Employing both pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions, including patient and family education, improves symptoms and relieves patient and family distress, whether the delirium is reversible or irreversible, hyperactive or hypoactive. All interventions can be provided in any setting of care, including patients' homes.

Evidence for the use of Levomepromazine for symptom control in the palliative care setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug that is used clinically for a variety of distressing symptoms in palliative and end-of-life care. We undertook a systematic review based on the question "What is the published evidence for the use of levomepromazine in palliative symptom control?".

METHODS

To determine the level of evidence for the use of levomepromazine in palliative symptom control, and to discover gaps in evidence, relevant studies were identified using a detailed, multi-step search strategy. Emerging data was then scrutinized using appropriate assessment tools, and the strength of evidence systematically graded in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's 'levels of evidence' tool. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo and Ovid Nursing, together with hand-searching and cross-referencing provided the full research platform on which the review is based.

RESULTS

33 articles including 9 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria: 15 on palliative sedation, 8 regarding nausea and three on delirium and restlessness, one on pain and six with other foci. The studies varied greatly in both design and sample size. Levels of evidence ranged from level 2b to level 5, with the majority being level 3 (non-randomized, non-consecutive or cohort studies n = 22), with the quality of reporting for the included studies being only low to medium.

CONCLUSION

Levomepromazine is widely used in palliative care as antipsychotic, anxiolytic, antiemetic and sedative drug. However, the supporting evidence is limited to open series and case reports. Thus prospective randomized trials are needed to support evidence-based guidelines.

Psychologic issues in palliative care

As medical science progresses and the life spans of patients with serious illnesses increase, the process that leads to death is becoming more feared than death itself. This fear is particularly intense in technologically advanced cultures with access to advanced medical care. The lives of patients who previously would have died rapidly are now often extended. As a result, images of suffering, such as dying in isolation and experiencing great pain, often are at the forefront of concerns about those struggling with terminal illnesses. This article provides medical practitioners with an overview of the issues and symptoms common in terminal illness, to help them work most effectively with their mental health colleagues.

Haloperidol in palliative care

Haloperidol is one of 20 'essential' medications in palliative care. Its use is widespread in palliative care patients. The pharmacology of haloperidol is complex and the extent and severity of some of its adverse effects, particularly extrapyramidal adverse effects (EPS), may be related to the route of administration. Indications for the use of haloperidol in palliative care are nausea and vomiting and delirium. Adverse effects include EPS and QT prolongation. Sedation is not a common adverse effect of haloperidol. It is important that palliative care practitioners have a comprehensive understanding of the indications, doses, adverse effects and pharmacology of haloperidol. This review is intended to address these issues.

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common disorder that often complicates treatment in patients with life-limiting disease. Delirium is described using a variety of terms such as agitation, acute confusional states, encephalopathy, organic mental disorders, and terminal restlessness. Delirium may arise from any number of causes, and treatment should be directed at addressing these causes. In cases where this is not possible, or does not prove successful, the use of drug therapy may become necessary.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to identify and evaluate studies examining medications used to treat patients suffering from delirium during the terminal phases of disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following sources: MEDLINE (1966 to July 2003), EMBASE 1980 to July 2003), CINAHL (1982 to July 2003), PSYCH LIT (1974 to July 2003), PSYCHINFO (1990 to July 2003) and the Cochrane Library Volume 2, 2003) for literature pertaining to this topic.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials with or without randomization and/or blinding involving the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of delirium at the end of life were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality using standardized methods and extracted data for evaluation. Outcomes related to both efficacy and adverse effects were collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen potential studies were identified by the search strategy. Of these, only one study met the criteria for inclusion in this review. This study evaluated 30 hospitalized AIDS patients receiving one of three different agents: chlorpromazine, haloperidol, and lorazepam. Analysis of this trial found chlorpromazine and haloperidol to be equally effective. Chlorpromazine was noted to slightly worsen cognitive function over time but this result was not significant. The lorazepam arm of the study was stopped early as a consequence of excessive sedation.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

The data from one study of 30 patients would perhaps suggest that haloperidol is the most suitable drug therapy for the treatment of patients with delirium near the end of life. Chlorpromazine may be an acceptable alternative if a small risk of slight cognitive impairment is not a concern. However, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the role of pharmacotherapy in terminally ill patients with delirium, and further research is essential.

Delirium in the terminally ill

Delirium is highly prevalent in terminally ill patients, especially in the last weeks of life, when some cognitive impairment develops in as many as 85% of patients. Delirium is associated with increased morbidity in terminally ill patients and can interfere with pain and symptom control. The cause of delirium is usually multifactorial and often cannot be found or reversed in dying patients. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions are effective in controlling the symptoms of delirium in terminally ill patients. Haloperidol and other newer neuroleptics are safe and effective in eliminating delirium for some patients. In approximately one third of patients, delirium can be managed successfully only by providing sedation.

The use of phenobarbitone in the management of agitation and seizures at the end of life

This study investigated the role of phenobarbitone at the end of life by retrospective analysis of case notes. During a 3-year period, of the 748 patients who died in a 32-bed palliative care unit, 60 received phenobarbitone during the last week of life. Fifty-nine patients had advanced cancer, 16 of whom had cerebral involvement. Phenobarbitone was used to control agitation and seizures. It was administered via subcutaneous infusion at a dose of 600-2400 mg/day. The mean time from starting phenobarbitone to death was 34.1 hours. Phenobarbitone was well tolerated and effective, controlling physical and psychological agitation. No further seizures occurred. This study suggests that phenobarbitone has a useful role in the management of distressing symptoms in the last few days of life.

Attenuation of morphine-induced delirium in palliative care by substitution with infusion of oxycodone

We have observed among patients of the Southern Community Hospice Programme that up to 25% experience acute delirium when treated with morphine and improve when the opioid is changed to oxycodone or fentanyl. This study aimed to confirm by a prospective trial that oxycodone produces less delirium than morphine in such patients. Oxycodone was administered by a continuous subcutaneous infusion, as this allowed more flexible and reliable dosing, and patients were monitored for any adverse reactions to the drug. Thirteen patients completed the study. Statistically significant improvements in mental state and nausea and vomiting occurred following a change from morphine to oxycodone. Pain scores improved but did not reach a level of statistical significance. The phenotype status of the patients was tested to establish their capacity to metabolize oxycodone. One patient who did not achieve adequate pain control proved to be a poor metabolizer. These results show that oxycodone administered by the subcutaneous route can provide effective analgesia without significant side effects in patients with morphine-induced delirium. This treatment allows patients to remain more comfortable and lucid in their final days. A small proportion of patients who do not metabolize oxycodone effectively may not receive this benefit.

A retrospective study of the psychiatric management and outcome of delirium in the cancer patient

This report describes the evaluation and treatment of delirium in the cancer patient in a major comprehensive cancer center. Ninety consecutive cases of delirium seen by the inpatient psychiatry consultation/liaison service were analyzed in a retrospective fashion to evaluate demographic information, alcohol use, central nervous system disease, coexisting medical disease, and past psychiatric history. Delirium cases were divided into hyperalert, hypoalert, and mixed subtypes. For these three subtypes, medication profiles including dose of medication, duration of delirium, outcome, and the venue where the delirium began were also evaluated. The hyperalert subtype of delirium was the commonest type observed (71%) and had the shortest duration (P < 0.0001) and best outcome (P < 0.001). The patients with a hyperalert delirium subtype were treated with the least amount of haloperidol (P < 0.0001). Patients were delirious for longer when the delirium began in the intensive-care units (P < 0.04). In general, patients who received no haloperidol experienced delirium of longer duration (P < 0.02) than those receiving haloperidol. Since the data represent patients who were referred for psychiatric treatment, this may explain the increased number of hyperalert deliriums and, therefore, the generalizability of the results is limited. Delirium in the cancer patient is particularly problematic given the coexisting medical problems these patients experience. Because the outcome of delirium is better when the duration is shorter, it is important for clinicians to be sensitive to early symptoms so that treatment can be implemented faster, leading to less morbidity and mortality.

Psychosocial Aspects of Palliative Care

BACKGROUND: Relief of suffering is a central goal for palliative care. Achievement of this goal can be difficult, however, due to the complex nature of suffering. METHODS: A psychosocial perspective is used to understand suffering and to identify interventions to relieve suffering in patients with advanced disease. RESULTS: Clinical experience and research suggest that attending to the psychosocial aspects as well as the medical aspects of palliative care has the potential of further reducing the suffering experienced by patients with advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: Suffering is best viewed as a subjective phenomenon t hat can be influenced by biological, psychological and social processes. Interventions in each of these areas can help to relieve patient suffering.

Identifying patients at risk for, and treatment of major psychiatric complications of cancer

A critically important aspect of supportive care in cancer is the prompt recognition and effective treatment of psychiatric complications. Psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety and delirium occur in a significant percentage of cancer patients, particularly as disease advances and as cancer treatments become more aggressive. This paper reviews factors that can be utilized to identify patients who are at increased risk for developing psychiatric complications, such as those with advanced disease, certain cancer treatments, uncontrolled physical symptoms, functional limitations, lack of social support, and past history of psychiatric disorder. Methods of diagnostic assessment and strategies for managing depression, anxiety, delirium and suicidal ideation are also reviewed.

The assessment of pain intensity in patients with cognitive failure: a preliminary report

We reviewed our experience with 14 consecutive patients with cancer pain who developed severe cognitive failure that reverted either spontaneously or after specific treatment. In 3 patients who developed a nonagitated cognitive failure episode (CFE), there was no difference in the pain intensity measured by the patient before and after the episode and that measured by the nurse during the episode. In 11 patients who developed an agitated CFE, pain intensity assessed by a nurse during the CFE was significantly higher than the patient's assessment, both before and after the CFE. Patients who developed agitated CFE received a mean of 5 +/- 2 extra doses of narcotics per day, versus a mean of 2.17 +/- 1.6 doses in the average patient in our unit (P less than 0.01). Upon complete recovery, none of the 14 patients recalled having had any discomfort during the CFE. Problematic conflict between staff and family was detected in 4 of 11 cases of agitated CFE (36%), versus an expected 13 of 260 cases (5%, P less than 0.01). We conclude that (a) patients who recover from a severe CFE have no memory of pain; (b) medical and nursing staff are likely to overestimate the level of pain of patients with agitated CFE; and (c) agitated CFE in patients with cancer pain is a major source of distress for the patients' families and staff.