Proposed definitions for terminal sedation

Misconception between palliative care and euthanasia among Thai general practitioners: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Palliative care lower medical expenses and enhances quality of life, but misconception with euthanasia delays timely care and makes inappropriate patient management.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the magnitude of misconceptions between palliative care and euthanasia among Thai general practitioners, explore the association with knowledge, attitudes, and practical experience, and assess the association between misconception and confidence in practicing and referring patients to palliative care centers.

METHODS

All 144 general practitioners who were going to start residency training at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital in 2021 participated in this observational cross-sectional study. A chi-square test was utilized to examine the relationship between misconception and knowledge, attitude, practical experience, confidence to practice, and confidence to refer patients. Multivariable logistic regression was carried out while controlling for age, sex, knowledge, attitude, and experience to examine the relationship between misconception and confidence to practice and refer patients for palliative care. Statistical significance was defined at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

About 41% of general physicians had misconceptions regarding palliative care and euthanasia. High knowledge was associated with a lower level of misconception (p = 0.01). The absence of misconceptions was weakly associated with a higher level of confidence in practicing palliative care, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 3.10, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

High misconception rates between palliative care and euthanasia among young Thai physicians might impact their confidence in delivering palliative care. Training initiatives for medical students and practitioners can mitigate misconceptions, fostering better palliative care utilization in Thailand.

Could palliative sedation be seen as unnamed euthanasia?: a survey among healthcare professionals in oncology

BACKGROUND

In 2016 a French law created a new right for end-of-life patients: deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, with discontinuation of all treatments sustaining life such as artificial nutrition and hydration. It was totally unprecedented that nutrition and hydration were explicitly defined in France as sustaining life treatments, and remains a specificity of this law. End- of-life practices raise ethical and practical issues, especially in Europe actually. We aimed to know how oncology professionals deal with the law, their opinion and experience and their perception.

METHODS

Online mono-centric survey with closed-ended and open-ended questions in a Cancer Comprehensive Centre was elaborated. It was built during workshops of the ethics committee of the Institute, whose president is an oncologist with a doctoral degree in medical ethics. 58 oncologists and 121 nurses-all professionals of oncological departments -, received it, three times, as mail, with an information letter.

RESULTS

63/ 179 professionals answered the questionnaire (35%). Conducting end-of-life discussions and advanced care planning were reported by 46/63 professionals. In the last three months, 18 doctors and 7 nurses faced a request for a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, in response to physical or existential refractory suffering. Artificial nutrition and even more hydration were not uniformly considered as treatment. Evaluation of the prognosis, crucial to decide a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, appears to be very difficult and various, between hours and few weeks. Half of respondents were concerned that this practice could lead to or hide euthanasia practices, whereas for the other half, this new law formalised practices necessary for the quality of palliative care at the end-of-life.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents support the implementation of deep and continuous sedation maintained until death in routine end-of-life care. Nevertheless, difficulty to stop hydration, confusion with euthanasia practices, ethical debates it provokes and the risk of misunderstanding within teams and with families are significant. This is certainly shared by other teams. This could lead to a multi-centric survey and if confirmed might be reported to the legislator.

Cross-cultural comparison of continuous deep sedation for advanced cancer patients in East Asian countries: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Cultural, social, and legal factors have been known to affect physicians' practice of continuous deep sedation. There have been few quantitative studies to compare continuous deep sedation practice in Asian countries. We aimed to describe and compare clinical characteristics of continuous deep sedation in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer admitted to participating palliative care units were enrolled from January 2017 to September 2018. We evaluated and compared (i) the prevalence of continuous deep sedation, (ii) the characteristics of sedated and non-sedated groups in each country, and (iii) continuous deep sedation administration patterns among the three countries.

RESULTS

A total of 2158 participants were included in our analysis, and 264 received continuous deep sedation. The continuous deep sedation prevalence was 10, 16 and 22% in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively. Delirium was the most frequent target symptom in all countries, along with dyspnoea (in Japan) and psychological symptoms (in Korea). Midazolam was most frequently used in Japan and Taiwan, but not in Korea (P < 0.001). Among the patients receiving continuous deep sedation, the hydration amount on the final day was significantly different, with median volumes of 200, 500 and 0 mL in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively (P < 0.001). In Korea, 33% of the continuous deep sedation administration caused a high degree of physicians' discomfort, but 3% in Japan and 5% in Taiwan (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practices of continuous deep sedation and physicians' discomfort related to continuous deep sedation initiation highly varied across countries. We need to develop optimal decision-making models of continuous deep sedation and hydration during continuous deep sedation in each country.

What do you mean by "palliative sedation"? : Pre-explicative analyses as preliminary steps towards better definitions

BACKGROUND

Sedation in palliative care is frequently but controversially discussed. Heterogeneous definitions and conceptual confusion have been cited as contributing to different problems 1) relevant to empirical research, for example, inconsistent data about practice, the 'data problem', and 2) relevant for an ethically legitimate characterisation of the practice, the 'problem of ethical pre-emption'. However, little is known about how exactly definitions differ, how they cause confusion and how this can be overcome.

METHOD

Pre-explicative analyses: (A) systematic literature search for guidelines on sedation in palliative care and systematic decomposition of the definitions of the practice in these guidelines; (B) logical distinction of different ways through which the two problems reported might be caused by definitions; and (C) analysis of how content of the definitions contributes to the problems reported in these different ways.

RESULTS

29 guidelines from 14 countries were identified. Definitions differ significantly in both structure and content. We identified three ways in which definitions can cause the 'data problem' - 1) different definitions, 2) deviating implicit concepts, 3) disagreement about facts. We identified two ways to cause the problem of ethical pre-emption: 1) explicit or 2) implicit normativity. Decomposition of definitions linked to the distinguished ways of causing the conceptual problems shows how exactly single parts of definitions can cause the problems identified.

CONCLUSION

Current challenges concerning empirical research on sedation in palliative care can be remediated partly by improved definitions in the future, if content and structure of the used definitions is chosen systematically. In addition, future research should bear in mind that there are distinct purposes of definitions. Regarding the 'data problem', improving definitions is possible in terms of supplementary information, checking for implicit understanding, systematic choice of definitional elements. 'Ethical pre-emption', in contrast, is a pseudo problem if definitions and the relationship of definitions and norms of good practice are understood correctly.

The role of end-of-life palliative sedation: medical and ethical aspects – Review

Background and objective

Palliative sedation is a medical procedure that has been used for more than 25 years to relieve refractory symptoms not responsive to any previous treatment in patients with no possibility of cure and near the end of life. Many uncertainties persist on the theme regarding definition, indications, decision making, most appropriate place to perform the procedure, most used drugs, need for monitoring, fluids and nutritional support, and possible ethical dilemmas. The objective of this review was to seek a probable consensus among the authors regarding these topics not yet fully defined.

Method

An exploratory search was made in secondary sources, from 1990 to 2016, regarding palliative sedation and its clinical and bioethical implications.

Conclusions

Palliative sedation is an alternative to alleviate end-of-life patient suffering due to refractory symptoms, particularly dyspnea and delirium, after all other treatment options have been exhausted. Decision making involves prior explanations, discussions and agreement of the team, patient, and/or family members. It can be performed in general hospital units, hospices and even at home. Midazolam is the most indicated drug, and neuroleptics may also be required in the presence of delirium. These patients’ monitoring is limited to comfort observation, relief of symptoms, and presence of adverse effects. There is no consensus on whether or not to suspend fluid and nutritional support, and the decision must be made with family members. From the bioethical standpoint, the great majority of authors are based on intention and proportionality to distinguish between palliative sedation, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

[The role of end-of-life palliative sedation: medical and ethical aspects - Review]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Palliative sedation is a medical procedure that has been used for more than 25 years to relieve refractory symptoms not responsive to any previous treatment in patients with no possibility of cure and near the end of life. Many uncertainties persist on the theme regarding definition, indications, decision making, most appropriate place to perform the procedure, most used drugs, need for monitoring, fluids and nutritional support, and possible ethical dilemmas. The objective of this review was to seek a probable consensus among the authors regarding these topics not yet fully defined.

METHOD

An exploratory search was made in secondary sources, from 1990 to 2016, regarding palliative sedation and its clinical and bioethical implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative sedation is an alternative to alleviate end-of-life patient suffering due to refractory symptoms, particularly dyspnea and delirium, after all other treatment options have been exhausted. Decision making involves prior explanations, discussions and agreement of the team, patient, and/or family members. It can be performed in general hospital units, hospices and even at home. Midazolam is the most indicated drug, and neuroleptics may also be required in the presence of delirium. These patients' monitoring is limited to comfort observation, relief of symptoms, and presence of adverse effects. There is no consensus on whether or not to suspend fluid and nutritional support, and the decision must be made with family members. From the bioethical standpoint, the great majority of authors are based on intention and proportionality to distinguish between palliative sedation, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

[Palliative sedation : Development and consensus of a German language documentation template]

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation (PS) serves as a therapeutic option in cases of otherwise intractable suffering. As the use of sedative and hypnotic medication in many diverse situations is a core competency of anesthesiology, anesthesiologists are confronted with questions of sedative therapy at the end of life in institutions for specialized palliative care, in intensive care units and intermediate care wards. In recent years a number of guidelines have been published internationally but so far no official guidelines exist in Germany. The most recognized document is the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework on PS. This project aims to develop a German language template for the preparation, application, documentation and evaluation of PS according to the current frameworks, especially the EAPC framework on PS.

METHODS

A first draft of the template was generated by the project team using the EAPC framework and individual templates of various institutions, which had been collected during a previous project. Professionals (n = 136) from inpatient and outpatient specialist palliative and hospice care were invited to assess all items of the draft regarding "relevance", "wording" and "feasibility" in an online Delphi survey (Unipark®, Questback, Cologne, Germany). After the second Delphi round an expert panel was asked to reflect the results and generate a final draft. Approval was granted if acceptance exceeded 75% of participants.

RESULTS

The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 64, 46 and 41 participants, respectively. The Delphi process as well as the expert panel led to significant changes of the template. The indications for PS had to be clarified. The significance of documentation of vital parameters, such as oxygen saturation, blood pressure or respiratory rate during PS was intensively discussed. In many teams, predominantly hospice or outpatient palliative care teams, it seems to be difficult to measure these parameters or it is regarded as inappropriate in a palliative care setting. In contrast, the EAPC framework recommends monitoring of vital parameters in cases of intermittent or respite sedation. Finally, a solution was found to support documentation of additional data without the explicit mentioning of specific parameters. After the third Delphi round, all 16 items of the documentation template reached consensus with respect to relevance (82.9-100%), clarity of wording (80.5-100%), and feasibility in practice (78-100%).

CONCLUSION

This article provides an empirically based, multiprofessional consented documentation template for PS. Core elements of the documentation of PS are the indications and the decision process towards PS. During the treatment, at least the level of sedation and the symptom burden have to be recorded. The documentation of vital signs during PS remains a highly disputed topic. The presented data suggest that especially in outpatient settings and in hospices measuring and documentation of vital parameters is uncommon and therefore is often regarded as not feasible. This template can help to support the medically and ethically sound use of PS and facilitate research. The template can be accessed at http://www.palliativmedizin.uk-erlangen.de/forschung/downloads/ .

Palliative sedation in Germany: factors and treatment practices associated with different sedation rate estimates in palliative and hospice care services

Background

Clinical practice of Palliative Sedation (PS) varies between institutions worldwide and sometimes includes problematic practices. Little available research points at different definitions and frameworks which may contribute to uncertainty of healthcare professionals in the application of PS. This analysis investigates what demographic factors and characteristics of treatment practices differ between institutions with high versus low sedation rates estimates in Palliative and Hospice Care in Germany.

Methods

Data sets from 221 organisations from a prior online survey were separated into two sub-groups divided by their estimated sedation rate A) lower/equal to 16% (n = 187; 90.8%) and B) higher than 16% (n = 19; 9.2%) for secondary analysis. Demographic factors and characteristics of PS treatment practices between the two groups were compared using T-Tests and Chi²/ Fisher Exact Tests and considered significant (*) at two-sided p < .05.

Results

Organisations in group B report that they discuss PS for a higher proportion of patients (38.5%/10.2%, p < 0.000**), rate agitation more often as an indications for PS (78.9%/ 53.5%, p = 0.050*), and are more likely to use Lorazepam (63.2%/ 37.4%, p = 0.047*), Promethazin (26.3%/ 9.6%, p = 0.044*), and (Es-)Ketamin (31.6%/ 12.8%, p = 0.039*) than representatives in group A. Both groups differ significantly in their allocation of three case scenarios to different types of PS.

Conclusions

Both definitions and patterns of clinical practice between palliative and hospice care representatives show divergence, which may be influenced one by another. A comprehensive framework considering conceptual, clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of different definitions of PS could help to better distinguish between different types and nuances of PS.

A Review of Agents for Palliative Sedation/Continuous Deep Sedation: Pharmacology and Practical Applications

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a specific form of palliative sedation requiring a care plan that essentially places and maintains the patient in an unresponsive state because their symptoms are refractory to any other interventions. Because this application is uncommon, many providers may lack practical experience in this specialized area and resources they can access are outdated, nonspecific, and/or not comprehensive. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence- and experience-based reference that specifically addresses those medications and regimens and their practical applications for this very narrow, but vital, aspect of hospice care. Patient goals in a hospital and hospice environments are different, so the manner in which widely used sedatives are dosed and applied can differ greatly as well. Parameters applied in end-of-life care that are based on experience and a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of those medications will differ from those applied in an intensive care unit or other medical environments. By recognizing these different goals and applying well-founded regimens geared specifically for end-of-life sedation, we can address our patients' symptoms in a more timely and efficacious manner.

Continuous Deep Sedation: A Proposal for Performing More Rigorous Empirical Research

Continuous deep sedation until death (CDS) is a type of palliative sedation therapy, and it has recently become a focus of intense debate. Marked inconsistencies in intervention procedures (i.e., what is CDS?) and unstandardized descriptions of patient backgrounds lead to difficulty in comparing the results in the literature. The primary aim of this article was to propose a conceptual framework to perform empirical studies on CDS. We propose the definition of CDS using the intervention protocol. As there are two types of CDS proposed in world-wide literature, we recommend to prepare two types of intervention protocol for CDS: "continuous deep sedation as a result of proportional sedation" (gradual CDS) and "continuous deep sedation to rapidly induce unconsciousness" (rapid CDS). In addition, we recommend that researchers characterize study patients' general condition using a validated prognostic tool, Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model-A. Using this conceptual framework, we can compare the outcomes following the same exposures among homogenous patients throughout the world. This article proposes a provisional definition of two types of CDS. Defining CDS using the intervention protocol and describing patient backgrounds using validated prognostic tools enable comparisons and interpretations of empirical research about CDS. More empirical studies are urgently needed.

Pediatrician Ambiguity in Understanding Palliative Sedation at the End of Life

CONTEXT

Palliative sedation is a means of relieving intractable symptoms at the end of life, however, guidelines about its use lack consistency. In addition, ethical concerns persist around the practice. There are reports of palliative sedation in the pediatric literature, which highlight various institutional perspectives.

OBJECTIVES

This survey of 4786 pediatric providers sought to describe their knowledge of and current practices around pediatric palliative sedation.

METHODS

Our survey was administered to pediatricians who care for children at the end of life. The survey assessed agreement with a definition of palliative sedation, as well as thoughts about its alignment with aggressive symptom management. Bivariate analyses using χ² and analysis of variance were calculated to determine the relationship between responses to closed-ended questions. Open-ended responses were thematically coded by the investigators and reviewed for agreement.

RESULTS

Nearly half (48.6%) of the respondents indicated that the stated definition of palliative sedation "completely" reflected their own views. Respondents were split when asked if they viewed any difference between palliative sedation and aggressive symptom management: Yes (46%) versus No (54%). Open-ended responses revealed specifics about the nature of variation in interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Responses point to ambiguity surrounding the concept of palliative sedation. Pediatricians were concerned with a decreased level of consciousness as the goal of palliative sedation. Respondents were split on whether they view palliative sedation as a distinct entity or as one broad continuum of care, equivalent to aggressive symptom management. Institutional-based policies are essential to clarify acceptable practice, enable open communication, and promote further research.

Distancing sedation in end-of-life care from physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia

Lipuma equates continuous sedation until death (CSD) to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) based on the premise that iatrogenic unconsciousness negates social function and, thus, personhood, leaving a patient effectively 'dead'. Others have extrapolated upon this position further, to suggest that any use of sedation and/or opioids at the end of life would be analogous to CSD and thus tantamount to PAS/E. These posits sit diametrically opposite to standard end-of-life care practices. This paper will refute Lipuma's position and the posits borne from it. We first show that prevailing end-of-life care guidelines require proportional and monitored use of sedatives and/or opioids to attenuate fears that the use of such treatment could hasten death. These guidelines also classify CSD as a last resort treatment, employed only when symptoms prove intractable, and not amenable to all standard treatment options. Furthermore, CSD is applied only when deemed appropriate by a multidisciplinary palliative medicine team. We also show that empirical data based on local views of personhood will discount concerns that iatrogenic unconsciousness is tantamount to a loss of personhood and death.

In-service documentation tools and statements on palliative sedation in Germany--do they meet the EAPC framework recommendations? A qualitative document analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous (inter-)national guidelines and frameworks have been developed to provide recommendations for the application of palliative sedation (PS). However, they are still not widely known, and large variations in PS clinical practice can be found.

AIM

This study aims to collect and describe contents from documents used in clinical practice and to compare to what extent they match the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework recommendations.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In a national survey on PS in Germany 2012, participants were asked to upload their in-service templates, assessment tools, specific protocols, and in-service statements for the application and documentation of PS. These documents are analyzed by using systematic structured content analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred seven content units of 52 provided documents were coded. The analyzed templates are very heterogeneous and also contain items not mentioned in the EAPC framework. Among 11 scales for the evaluation of sedation level, the Ramsey Sedation Score (n = 5) and the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (n = 2) were found most often. For symptom assessment, three different scales were provided one time respectively. In all six PS statements, the common core elements were possible indications for PS, instructions on dose titration, patient monitoring, and care. Wide congruency exists for physical and psychological indications. Most documents coincide on midazolam as a preferred drug and basic monitoring in regular intervals. Aspects such as pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation, informational needs of relatives, and care for the medical professionals are mentioned rarely.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyzed templates do neglect some points of the EAPC recommendations. However, they expand the ten-point scheme of the framework in some details. The findings may facilitate the development of standardized consensus documentation and monitoring draft as an operational statement.

Palliative sedation at home for terminally ill children with cancer

CONTEXT

The presence of symptoms that are difficult to control always requires adjustment of treatment, and palliative sedation (PS) should be considered.

OBJECTIVES

We analyzed our experience in conducting PS at home for terminally ill children with cancer during a seven-year period.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of children with cancer treated at home between the years 2005 and 2011.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data of 42 cancer patients (18% of all patients); in 21 cases, PS was initiated (solid tumors n = 11, brain tumors [5], bone tumors [4], leukemia [1]). Sedation was introduced because of pain (n = 13), dyspnea (9), anxiety (5), or two of those symptoms (6). The main drug used for sedation was midazolam; all patients received morphine. There were no significant differences in the dose of morphine or midazolam depending on the patient's sex; age was correlated with an increase of midazolam dose (R = 0.68; P = 0.005). Duration of sedation (R = 0.61; P = 0.003) and its later initiation (R = 0.43; P = 0.05) were correlated with an increase of the morphine dose. All patients received adjuvant treatment; in patients who required a morphine dose increase, metoclopramide was used more often (P = 0.0002). Patients did not experience any adverse reactions. Later introduction of sedation was associated with a marginally higher number of intervention visits and a significantly higher number of planned visits (R = 0.53; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Sedation may be safely used at home. It requires close monitoring and full cooperation between the family and hospice team. Because of the limited data on home PS in pediatric populations, further studies are needed.

Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Studies describing physicians' experiences with sedation at the end of life are indispensible for informed palliative care practice, but they are scarce. We describe the accounts of physicians from the USA and the Netherlands, two countries with different regulations on end-of-life decisions regarding their use of sedation.

METHODS

Qualitative face-to-face interviews were held in 2007-2008 with 36 physicians (18 from the Netherlands, 18 from the USA), including primary care physicians and specialists. We applied purposive sampling and conducted constant comparative analyses.

RESULTS

In both countries, the use of sedation was described in diverse terms, especially in the USA, and was often experienced as emotionally challenging. Respondents stated different and sometimes multiple intentions for their use of sedation. Besides alleviating severe suffering, most Dutch respondents justified its use by stating that it does not hasten death, while most American respondents indicated that it might hasten death but that this was justifiable as long as that was not their primary intention. While many Dutch respondents indicated that they initiated open discussions about sedation proactively to inform patients about their options and to allow planning, the accounts of American respondents showed fewer and less-open discussions, mostly late in the dying process and with the patient's relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The justification for sedation and the openness with which it is discussed were found to differ in the accounts of respondents from the USA and the Netherlands. Further clarification of practices and research into the effect and effectiveness of the use of sedation is recommended to enhance informed reflection and policy making.

From sedation to continuous sedation until death: how has the conceptual basis of sedation in end-of-life care changed over time?

CONTEXT

Numerous attempts have been made to describe and define sedation in end-of-life care over time. However, confusion and inconsistency in the use of terms and definitions persevere in the literature, making interpretation, comparison, and extrapolation of many studies and case analyses problematic.

OBJECTIVES

This evidence review aims to address and account for the conceptual debate over the terminology and definitions ascribed to sedation at the end of life over time.

METHODS

Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) and two high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal) were searched for indexed materials published between 1945 and 2011. This search resulted in bibliographic data of 328 published outputs. Terms and definitions were manually scanned, coded, and linguistically analyzed by means of term description criteria and discourse analysis.

RESULTS

The review shows that terminology has evolved from simple to complex terms with definitions varying in length, comprising different aspects of sedation such as indications for use, pharmacology, patient symptomatology, target population, time of initiation, and ethical considerations, in combinations of a minimum of two or more of these aspects.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need to resolve the conceptual confusion that currently exists in the literature to bring clarity to the dialogue and build a base of commonality on which to design research and enhance the practice of sedation in end-of-life care.

The practice of continuous deep sedation until death in Flanders (Belgium), the Netherlands, and the U.K.: a comparative study

CONTEXT

Existing empirical evidence shows that continuous deep sedation until death is given in about 15% of all deaths in Flanders, Belgium (BE), 8% in The Netherlands (NL), and 17% in the U.K.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares characteristics of continuous deep sedation to explain these varying frequencies.

METHODS

In Flanders, BE (2007) and NL (2005), death certificate studies were conducted. Questionnaires about continuous deep sedation and other decisions were sent to the certifying physicians of each death from a stratified sample (Flanders, BE: n=6927; NL: n=6860). In the U.K. in 2007-2008, questionnaires were sent to 8857 randomly sampled physicians asking them about the last death attended.

RESULTS

The total number of deaths studied was 11,704 of which 1517 involved continuous deep sedation. In Dutch hospitals, continuous deep sedation was significantly less often provided (11%) compared with hospitals in Flanders, BE (20%) and the U.K. (17%). In U.K. home settings, continuous deep sedation was more common (19%) than in Flanders, BE (10%) or NL (8%). In NL in both settings, continuous deep sedation more often involved benzodiazepines and lasted less than 24 hours. Physicians in Flanders combined continuous deep sedation with a decision to provide physician-assisted death more often. Overall, men, younger patients, and patients with malignancies were more likely to receive continuous deep sedation, although this was not always significant within each country.

CONCLUSION

Differences in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation appear to reflect complex legal, cultural, and organizational factors more than differences in patients' characteristics or clinical profiles. Further in-depth studies should explore whether these differences also reflect differences between countries in the quality of end-of-life care.

Palliative sedation at the end of life at a tertiary cancer center

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation (PS) its indications and outcomes in patients followed up till death by an inpatient palliative care consult team (PCCT) at a tertiary cancer center.

METHODS

All patients referred for 5 years to the PCCT and followed up till death were eligible for the study. Both PCCT recordings and hospital charts were reviewed and a codified assessment was performed.

RESULTS

Over a total of 2,033 consecutive consults, 129 patients died during admission and were eligible. Eighty-three had the indication to PS, 4% of all consults (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3% to 5%) and 64% of eligible patients (95%CI, 56% to 73%). PS was more frequently indicated in males and in patients with recurrent dyspnea and recurrent agitation, while it was less frequently indicated in older people and in patients with cerebral metastases and recurrent drowsiness. The most frequent indications to PS were dyspnea (37%) and delirium (31%) alone or combined with other symptoms. PS was successfully achieved in 69 patients; the drugs most frequently used for PS were midazolam (46%), haloperidol (35%), and chlorpromazine (32%) and opioid dose escalation was higher in sedated patients (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PS is an important intervention in the management of terminal disease by a consulting palliative care team. Improved collaboration and communication between the hospital staff and the PCCT should be offered to meet patients' needs when PS is required.

Ethical issues in palliative care

Ethical problems in medicine are common, especially when caring for patients at the end of life. However, many of these issues are not adequately identified in the outpatient setting. Primary care providers are in a unique and privileged position to identify ethical issues, prevent future conflicts, and help patients make medical decisions that are consistent with their individual values and preferences. This article describes some of the more common ethical issues faced by primary care physicians caring for patients with life-limiting illness.

Exploration of concerns of relatives during continuous palliative sedation of their family members with cancer

Data on the experiences of relatives during continuous palliative sedation are scarce. Because these relatives may be the ones most closely involved with the patient, it is important to evaluate the possible burdens that they experience. We aimed to explore and evaluate concerns of relatives during continuous palliative sedation of their family members admitted to an acute palliative care unit. Through retrospective multidisciplinary record research, we obtained data on concerns of the relatives during the period that continuous palliative sedation took place. From October 2001 to October 2004, 45 patients died after starting continuous palliative sedation. In 51% of the cases, the relatives expressed concerns after starting the therapy. Concerns could be distinguished into three main themes: concerns about the aim of continuous palliative sedation (27%), concerns related to the well-being of the patient (29%), and concerns related to the well-being of relatives themselves (18%). Patient and sedation characteristics did not differ significantly between sedations in which relatives did and did not express concerns, except for the duration of the sedation. The median duration of the continuous palliative sedation when concerns were expressed was 46 hours, compared with 19.5 hours when this was not the case (P<0.05). Both the nature and extent of the concerns suggest that relatives are in need of continuous information and professional guidance during continuous palliative sedation of their family members. Availability of caregiver guidance and clear process documentation are crucial and indispensable in providing this.

When cancer symptoms cannot be controlled: the role of palliative sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Palliative sedation, the intentional lowering of consciousness for refractory and unbearable distress, has been much discussed during the last decade. In recent years, much research has been published about this subject that will be discussed in this review. The review concentrates on: a brief overview of the main developments during the last decade, an exploration of current debate regarding ethical dilemmas, the development of clinical guidelines, and the application of palliative sedation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Main findings are that palliative sedation is mostly described in retrospective studies and that the terminology palliative sedation in now common in the majority of the studies. In addition, life-shortening effects for palliative sedation are scarcely reported, although not absent. A number of guidelines have been developed and published, although systematic implementation needs more attention. Consequently, palliative sedation has become more clearly positioned as a medical treatment, to be distinguished from active life shortening.

SUMMARY

Caregivers should apply palliative sedation proportionally, guided by the symptoms of the patient without striving for deep coma and without motives for life shortening. Clinical and multidisciplinary assessment of refractory symptoms is recommended as is patient monitoring during sedation. Future research should concentrate on proportional sedation rather than continuous deep sedation exclusively, preferably in a prospective design.

Palliative sedation until death: an approach from Kant's ethics of virtue

This paper is concerned with the moral justification for palliative sedation until death. Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness for the relief of untreatable symptoms. The paper focuses on the moral problems surrounding the intentional lowering of consciousness until death itself, rather than possible adjacent life-shortening effects. Starting from a Kantian perspective on virtue, it is shown that continuous deep sedation until death (CDS) does not conflict with the perfect duty of moral self-preservation because CDS does not destroy capacities for agency. In addition, it is argued that CDS can frustrate the imperfect duty of self-cultivation by reducing consciousness permanently. Nevertheless, there are cases where CDS is morally acceptable, namely, cases where the agent has already permanently lost the possibility for free action in advance of sedation--for example, due to excruciating and ongoing pain. Because the latter can be difficult to diagnose properly, safeguards may be needed in order to prevent the application of CDS for the wrong reasons.

Palliative sedation: a review of the research literature

The overall aim of this paper is to systematically review the following important aspects of palliative sedation: prevalence, indications, survival, medication, food and fluid intake, decision making, attitudes of physicians, family experiences, and efficacy and safety. A thorough search of different databases was conducted for pertinent research articles published from 1966 to June 2007. The following keywords were used: end of life, sedation, terminal sedation, palliative sedation, refractory symptoms, and palliative care. Language of the articles was limited to English, French, German, and Dutch. Papers reporting solely on the sedatives used in palliative care, without explicitly reporting the prevalence or intensity of sedation, and papers not reporting on primary research (such as reviews or theoretical articles) were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed according to the criteria of Hawker et al. (2002). The search yielded 130 articles, 33.8% of which were peer-reviewed empirical research studies. Thirty-three research papers and one thesis were included in this systematic review. This review reveals that there still are many inconsistencies with regard to the prevalence, the effect of sedation, food and fluid intake, the possible life-shortening effect, and the decision-making process. Further research to clarify all of this should be based on multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, and international studies that use a uniform definition of palliative sedation, and valid and reliable instruments. Only through such research will it be possible to resolve some of the important ethical issues related to palliative sedation.

A national guideline for palliative sedation in the Netherlands

The first national guideline on palliative sedation in The Netherlands has been adopted by the General Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association. By law, the physician is obliged to take this guideline into consideration. In this paper, we present the main principles of the guideline. Palliative sedation is defined as the intentional lowering of consciousness of a patient in the last phase of his or her life. The aim of palliative sedation is to relieve suffering, and lowering consciousness is a means to achieve this. The indication for palliative sedation is the presence of one or more refractory symptoms that lead to unbearable suffering for the patient. Palliative sedation is given to improve patient comfort. It is the degree of symptom control, not the level to which consciousness is lowered, which determines the dose and the combinations of the sedatives used and duration of treatment. Palliative sedation is normal medical practice and must be clearly distinguished from the termination of life.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Continuous deep sedation: physicians' experiences in six European countries

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

Ethical validity of palliative sedation therapy: a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted on specialized palliative care units in Japan

Although palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients to achieve acceptable symptom relief, empirical data supporting the ethical validity of this approach are lacking. The primary aim of this study was to systematically investigate whether empirical evidence supports the ethical validity of sedation. This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study, which was conducted by 21 specialized palliative care units in Japan. One-hundred two consecutive adult cancer patients who received continuous deep sedation were enrolled. Continuous deep sedation was defined as the continuous use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable and refractory distress by achieving almost or complete unconsciousness until death. Prior to the study, we conceptualized the ethical validity of sedation from the viewpoints of physicians' intent, proportionality, and autonomy. Sedation was performed mainly with midazolam and phenobarbital. The initial doses of midazolam and phenobarbital were 1.5 mg/hour and 20 mg/hour, respectively. Main administration routes were continuous subcutaneous infusion and continuous intravenous infusion, and no rapid intravenous injection was reported. Of 59 patients who received artificial hydration or could intake adequate fluids/foods orally before sedation, 63% received artificial hydration therapy after sedation, and in the remaining patients, artificial hydration was withheld or withdrawn due to fluid retention symptoms and/or patient wishes. Of 66 patients who were able to verbally express themselves, 95% explicitly stated that symptoms were intolerable. The etiologies of the symptoms requiring sedation were primarily related to the progression of the underlying malignancy, such as cancer cachexia and organ failure, and standard palliative treatments had failed: steroids in 68% of patients with fatigue, opioids in 95% of patients with dyspnea, antisecretion medications in 75% of patients with bronchial secretion, antipsychotic medications in 74% of patients with delirium, and opioids in all patients with pain. On the basis of the Palliative Prognostic Index, 94% of the patients were predicted to die within 3 weeks. Before sedation, 67% of the patients expressed explicit wishes for sedation. In the remaining 34 patients, previous wishes for sedation were noted in 4 patients, and in the other 30 patients, the families were involved in the decision-making process. The chief reason for patient non-involvement in the decision making was cognitive impairment. These data indicate that palliative sedation therapy performed in specialized palliative care units in Japan generally followed the principles of double effect, proportionality, and autonomy.

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

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

Sedation for Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer with Uncontrollable Physical Distress

BACKGROUND

Relief of distressful symptoms in terminally ill patients with cancer is of prime importance. Use of sedation to accomplish this has been the focus of recent medical studies in countries other than Japan. We investigated the influence on consciousness of sedative drugs in a Japanese hospice.

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

We defined sedation as medical procedure to decrease level of consciousness in order to relieve severe physical distress refractory to standard interventions. We excluded increases in doses of morphine or other analgesic drugs resulting in secondary somnolence from the present study. We reviewed medical records of patients receiving sedation among 124 consecutive patients admitted to our palliative care unit between January and December in 1999.

RESULTS

The 63 patients who received sedation (50.3%) died an average of 3.4 days after its initiation. Major symptoms requiring sedation were dyspnea, general malaise/restlessness, pain, agitation, and nausea/vomiting. The Palliative Performance Status (PPS) just before sedation was 20 or less in 83% of patients. Drugs administered for sedation were midazolam, haloperidol, scopolamine hydrobromide, and chlorpromazine. During the few days before death, sedated patients were significantly more drowsy and less responsive than that in those receiving non-sedative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest the effectiveness of sedation in relieving severe, refractory physical symptoms in terminally ill Japanese patients with cancer. Further investigation to confirm safety and effectiveness of sedation in this context is warranted.

Family experience with palliative sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients

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

Emotional burden of nurses in palliative sedation therapy

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Attitudes on euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and terminal sedation--a survey of the members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine

BACKGROUND

Due to recent legislations on euthanasia and its current practice in the Netherlands and Belgium, issues of end-of-life medicine have become very vital in many European countries. In 2002, the Ethics Working Group of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) has conducted a survey among its physician members in order to evaluate their attitudes towards different end-of-life medical practices, such as euthanasia (EUT), physician-assisted suicide (PAS), and terminal sedation (TS).

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was sent to the 411 DGP physicians, consisting of 14 multiple choice questions on positions that might be adopted in different hypothetical scenarios on situations of "intolerable suffering" in end-of-life care. For the sake of clarification, several definitions and legal judgements of different terms used in the German debate on premature termination of life were included. For statistical analysis t-tests and Pearson-correlations were used.

RESULTS

The response rate was 61% (n = 251). The proportions of the respondents who were opposed to legalizing different forms of premature termination of life were: 90% opposed to EUT, 75% to PAS, 94% to PAS for psychiatric patients. Terminal sedation was accepted by 94% of the members. The main decisional bases drawn on for the answers were personal ethical values, professional experience with palliative care, knowledge of alternative approaches, knowledge of ethical guidelines and of the national legal frame.

CONCLUSIONS

In sharp contrast to similar surveys conducted in other countries, only a minority of 9.6% of the DGP physicians supported the legalization of EUT. The misuse of medical knowledge for inhumane killing in the Nazi period did not play a relevant role for the respondents' negative attitude towards EUT. Palliative care needs to be stronger established and promoted within the German health care system in order to improve the quality of end-of-life situations which subsequently is expected to lead to decreasing requests for EUT by terminally ill patients.

Sedation in palliative care - a critical analysis of 7 years experience

BACKGROUND: The administration of sedatives in terminally ill patients becomes an increasingly feasible medical option in end-of-life care. However, sedation for intractable distress has raised considerable medical and ethical concerns. In our study we provide a critical analysis of seven years experience with the application of sedation in the final phase of life in our palliative care unit. METHODS: Medical records of 548 patients, who died in the Palliative Care Unit of GK Havelhoehe between 1995-2002, were retrospectively analysed with regard to sedation in the last 48 hrs of life. The parameters of investigation included indication, choice and kind of sedation, prevalence of intolerable symptoms, patients' requests for sedation, state of consciousness and communication abilities during sedation. Critical evaluation included a comparison of the period between 1995-1999 and 2000-2002. RESULTS: 14.6% (n = 80) of the patients in palliative care had sedation given by the intravenous route in the last 48 hrs of their life according to internal guidelines. The annual frequency to apply sedation increased continuously from 7% in 1995 to 19% in 2002. Main indications shifted from refractory control of physical symptoms (dyspnoea, gastrointestinal, pain, bleeding and agitated delirium) to more psychological distress (panic-stricken fear, severe depression, refractory insomnia and other forms of affective decompensation). Patients' and relatives' requests for sedation in the final phase were significantly more frequent during the period 2000-2002. CONCLUSION: Sedation in the terminal or final phase of life plays an increasing role in the management of intractable physical and psychological distress. Ethical concerns are raised by patients' requests and needs on the one hand, and the physicians' self-understanding on the other hand. Hence, ethically acceptable criteria and guidelines for the decision making are needed with special regard to the nature of refractory and intolerable symptoms, patients' informed consent and personal needs, the goals and aims of medical sedation in end-of-life care.

Similarity and difference among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia: a multidimensional scaling analysis on physicians' and the general population's opinions

There is a strong controversy about the differences among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia in recent medical literature. To investigate the similarities and differences among these medical treatments, a secondary analysis of two previous surveys was performed. In those surveys, Japanese physicians and the general population were asked to identify their treatment recommendations or preferences for intolerable and refractory distress in the terminal stage. The options were standard medical care without intentional sedation, mild sedation, intermittent deep sedation, continuous deep sedation, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)/euthanasia. Multidimensional scaling analysis mapped their responses. The physician responses were clustered into 3 groups: 1) standard medical care, 2) palliative sedation therapy including mild, intermittent deep, continuous deep sedation, and 3) PAS/euthanasia. The general population's responses were classified into 3 subgroups: 1) standard medical care, 2) mild and intermittent deep sedation, and 3) a group including continuous deep sedation and PAS/euthanasia. Physicians placed continuous deep sedation closer to mild and intermittent sedation, while the general population mapped it closer to PAS/euthanasia. In conclusion, physicians and general population can generally differentiate the three approaches--standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and PAS/euthanasia. We recommend that mild and intermittent deep sedation should be differentiated from standard medical care, and that continuous deep sedation should be dealt with separately from other types of sedation. Clear definitions of palliative sedation therapy will contribute to quality discussion.

Correlation of the dose of midazolam for symptom control with administration periods: the possibility of tolerance

Although tolerance to midazolam is sometimes described in the palliative care literature, no studies have systemically examined the possibility. To explore the association between midazolam dose for symptom palliation and the administration period, a retrospective study was performed on 62 terminally ill cancer patients who required parenteral midazolam in the final three days of life. The mean maximum dose and administration period of midazolam were 38 +/- 45 mg/day (median = 24) and 10 +/- 19 days (median = 2.5), respectively. Thirteen patients (21%) received midazolam at a dose of 60 mg/day or more, and 13 patients (21%) received it for 14 days or longer. The maximum doses were significantly correlated with patient age (rho = -0.32, P = 0.012) and the administration period (rho = 0.47, P < 0.01); and were significantly higher in patients who received midazolam for 14 days or longer (74 +/- 63 mg/day vs. 28 +/- 34 mg/day, P < 0.01). Multivariate analyses revealed that younger age (< or =70) and longer administration periods (> or =14 days) were independent determinants for a midazolam requirement of 60 mg/day or more (odds ratios [95% C.I.] = 0.091 [0.009 - 0.92], P = 0.042; 11 [2.3 - 54], P < 0.01; respectively). The significant correlation of midazolam doses with administration period suggests that the longer use of midazolam can result in the development of tolerance. This finding suggests that midazolam should be reserved for patients with limited prognoses.