The Principles of Revised Clinical Guidelines about Palliative Sedation Therapy of the Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine

Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.

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.

Palliative sedation: ethics in clinical practice guidelines - systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study was to determine whether, and to what degree, the ethical dimension was present in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on palliative sedation, and to identify the ethical issues with respect to the different forms of this practice. The purpose was purely to be descriptive; our aim was not to make any kind of normative judgements on these ethical issues or to develop our own ethical recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of CPGs on the palliative sedation of adults, focusing our analysis on the ethical dimension of these texts and the ethical issues of this practice. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

In total, 36 current CPGs from four continents (and 14 countries) were included in our analysis. Generally, ethics was rarely referred to or absent from the CPGs. Only six texts contained a specific section explicitly related to ethics. Ethical issues were named, conceptualised and presented in heterogeneous, often confusing ways. It was impossible to identify the ethical issues of each form of palliative sedation. Ethics expertise was not involved in the development of most of the CPGs and, if it was, this did not always correlate with the ethical dimension of the document.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective cooperation between palliative care clinicians and ethicists should be encouraged, in order to integrate in particular the crucial ethical issues of continuous deep sedation until death when developing or updating CPGs on palliative sedation.

Prognostic Impact of Malignant Wounds in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Malignant wounds are lesions caused by metastasis from distant primary cancers or by direct invasion of the cutaneous structures of a primary cancer, and are most common in patients with breast or head and neck cancers. Malignant wounds not only cause physical symptoms, but also affect survival. Recognizing prognosis in terminal-stage cancer patients is necessary for both patients and health care providers. The prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the results of a prospective cohort study that investigated the dying process in patients with advanced cancer in 23 palliative care units in Japan. The primary outcome of this study was the prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer. The difference in survival between patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds and those who did not was compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 1896 patients admitted to palliative care units, 68 had head and neck cancer, and 29 of these had malignant wounds. Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with malignant wounds than that in those without (median: 19.0 days vs 32.0 days, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds had worse overall survival than those who did not.

Sedation in Palliative Care—a Clinically Oriented Overview of Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations

BACKGROUND

The appropriate provision of sedation as a last resort for the relief of suffering in palliative care is dealt with variably in actual practice. This article is intended as an overview of practically relevant information found in treatment recommendations and guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, and a manual search was carried out online. Recommendations that were not available in either German or English, or that were specific to pediatric practice, were excluded. Publication quality was assessed with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II). The recommendations in the documents were qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

29 publications (11 journal articles, 18 other) of varying quality according to AGREE II were included. All recommendations and guidelines were essentially based on expert consensus. The common indications for sedation are otherwise intractable delirium, dyspnea, and pain, in patients with a life expectancy of no more than two weeks. Existential distress is a controversial indication. The drug of first choice is midazolam. As the sedating effect of opioids is hard to predict, they should not be used as sedatives. The risks of sedation include respiratory and circulatory depression, as well as the loss of communicative ability, control, and autonomy. It is generally recommended that the patient's symptom burden and depth of sedation should be monitored; clinical and technically supported monitoring are recommended in some publications as well, depending on the situation.

CONCLUSION

There is a broad consensus in favor of sedation to relieve suffering in the last days and hours of life. Recommendations vary for patients with a longer life expectancy and for those with existential distress, and with respect to monitoring.

Current Status and Future Directions of Research on Palliative Sedation

Patients with terminal cancer experience very severe symptoms during the end of life, and palliative sedation (PS) may be considered if those symptoms are refractory to any other treatment. This brief report presents ethical considerations, practices, and recent concerns on PS. PS is quite different from euthanasia. There is a lack of consensus and standards on protocols, but its notable effects have been reported in hospice care settings. Most studies to date have reported no difference in survival between patients receiving PS and those not, and PS must be conducted proportionally with the lightest level of sedation. The most common indication for PS is delirium, and midazolam is the main sedative used. It is recommended that information regarding PS should be provided to patients and their caregivers repeatedly as early as possible. Existential suffering alone is not an indication for PS, and there is a lack of evidence on bispectral analysis. Additional research on PS is needed in Korea.

Clinical Practice Guidelines on Palliative Sedation Around the World: A Systematic Review

Objective: The principal aim of this study was to identify, systematically and transparently, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on palliative sedation from around the world. Methods: A systematic search was performed using 5 databases, grey literature search tools, citation tracking, and contact with palliative care experts across the world. Current CPGs accredited by an international, national, or regional authority, published in English, German, French, or Italian, were subjected to content analysis. Results: In total, 35 CPGs from 14 countries and 1 international CPG were included in the analysis. The CPGs had diverse formal characteristics. Their thematic scope was difficult to analyze and compare because of differences in the terms and definitions of palliative sedation in those texts. We identified 3 main situations: (1) CPGs with a fully explicit thematic scope; (2) CPGs with a partially explicit thematic scope; and (3) CPGs without an explicit thematic scope. Several CPGs explicitly stated what forms of sedation were excluded from the text. However, this presentation was often confusing. Conclusion: Our review provides several pieces of information that could guide international reflections in this field, and be used to develop or update CPGs at all levels. Efforts should be made to clarify the thematic scope of each CPG on palliative sedation, in order to generate an understanding of the forms of this therapy addressed in the text.

Ethical dilemmas and care actions in nurses providing palliative sedation

BACKGROUND

Recently, palliative care is increasingly important, with an emphasis on the process of dying with dignity. However, nurses who care for such patients experience the associated ethical dilemmas.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the meaning of nurses' experiences in dealing with ethical dilemmas in relation to palliative sedation.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A qualitative research design was employed with a thematic analysis approach.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Using purposive sampling, 15 nurses, working at palliative care units for at least 1 year, were recruited as participants. Data were collected using unstructured in-depth interviews, and data collection and analysis was performed simultaneously.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval was obtained from the authors' institutional review board. All participants provided informed consent. For the face-to-face interview, the South Korean standard COVID-19 quarantine guidelines, such as mandatory masking and social distancing, were followed.

RESULTS

Dilemmas raised by patients, were related to concerns about appropriate drug dose; dilemmas raised by nurses, were related to passive care, sense of guilt for failure to predict death, and colleague's disrespectful attitudes toward patients; dilemmas from patients' families were related to demands for palliative sedation and reversal of those demands. Care actions to deal with ethical dilemmas comprised evidence-based care, person-centered thinking, reflecting on the death situation, compassion, providing explanation and help to family members.

CONCLUSION

Nurses' ethical dilemmas were pre-dominantly influenced by themselves, rather than by the patients or their families, especially if they felt they could not do their best for patients. The core concept of care actions to deal with the ethical dilemmas, was person-centered care and compassion. Then, how patients and their family members perceive person-centered care and compassion, should be further explored to improve palliative sedation.

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.

Association of the RASS Score with Intensity of Symptoms, Discomfort, and Communication Capacity in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Receiving Palliative Sedation: Is RASS an Appropriate Outcome Measure?

Background:

Palliative sedation is sometimes needed for refractory symptoms, and the Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale (RASS) is one of the key measures. The primary aim of this study was to explore the association between RASS and degree of distress quantified by other measures: Item “symptom control” of Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS, item 2), Discomfort Scale for Dementia of Alzheimer Type (Discomfort Scale), and Noncommunicative Patient's Pain Assessment Instrument (NOPPAIN), as well as a communication capacity measured by the Communication Capacity Scale (CCS), item 4.

Methods:

This was a prospective observational study on terminally ill cancer patients with palliative sedation in a palliative care unit of a designated cancer hospital. Primarily responsible palliative care physicians rated RASS, Discomfort Scale, NOPPAIN, and CCS just before sedation and 1, 4, 24, and 48 hours after, and ward nurses rated STAS at the same time. Since the ward nurses evaluated STAS during palliative sedation, we regarded STAS as a standard of distress measure.

Results:

A total of 249 assessments were performed for 55 patients. RASS was moderately to highly associated with symptom intensity measured by STAS, discomfort measured by the Discomfort Scale, and pain measured by NOPPAIN (r = 0.63 to 0.73). But communication capacity measured by CCS is not parallel with RASS and demonstrated a valley shape. In 82 assessments with an RASS score of −1 to −3, 11 patients (13%) had physical symptoms of STAS of 2 or more.

Conclusions:

RASS can roughly estimate physical distress in patients with palliative sedation, but a measure to more precisely quantify the symptom experience is needed.

Defining “Continuous Deep Sedation” Using Treatment Protocol: A Proposal Article

Context: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is regarded as a far-reaching form of sedative use for symptom control, but there are no established uniform definitions.

Objectives: To propose types of sedative use related to CDS using treatment protocols with three parameters: documented treatment goals, rapidity of dose titration, and planned duration of treatment.

Methods: Opinion article.

Results: We propose four types of sedative use potentially related to CDS: (1) proportional sedation (treatment goal is symptom relief with regular monitoring to maximize patient communication, not a decrease in consciousness; with gradual use of sedatives; there is a chance to cease sedatives), (2) rapid proportional sedation (treatment goal is symptom relief with a rapid loading phase, followed by regular monitoring to maximize patient communication; there is a chance to cease sedatives), (3) deep sedation with a chance of cessation (deep sedation intended initially, followed by regular assessments of appropriateness of treatment goal; there is a chance to cease sedatives), and (4) continuous deep sedation until death (deep sedation indicated from initiation and maintained until death).

Conclusion: This article proposes an idea that the use of treatment protocols that visualize treatment goals, rapidity of dose titration, and planned duration of treatment may help understand the existing variations in sedative use over the world. The use of treatment protocols in the same way when defining a medical treatment in other specialty fields might clear up the current confusion about the use of sedatives.

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.

Efficacy of Proportional Sedation and Deep Sedation Defined by Sedation Protocols: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Comparative Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of two types of palliative sedation: proportional and deep sedation, defined by sedation protocols.

METHODS

From a multicenter prospective observational study, we analyzed the data of those patients who received the continuous infusion of midazolam according to the sedation protocol. The primary endpoint was goal achievement at 4 hours: in proportional sedation, symptom relief (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale: IPOS ≤ 1) and absence of agitation (modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: RASS ≤ 0); in deep sedation, the achievement of deep sedation (RASS ≤ -4). Secondary endpoints included deep sedation as a result of proportional sedation, communication capacity (Communication Capacity Scale item 4 ≤ 2), IPOS and RASS scores, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients from 14 palliative care units were analyzed: proportional sedation (n = 64) and deep sedation (n = 17). At 4 hours, the goal was achieved in 77% (n = 49; 95% confidence interval: 66-87) with proportional sedation; and 88% (n = 15; 71-100) with deep sedation. Deep sedation was necessary in 45% of those who received proportional sedation. Communication capacity was maintained in 34% with proportional sedation and 10% with deep sedation. IPOS decreased from 3.5 to 0.9 with proportional sedation, and 3.5 to 0.4 with deep sedation; RASS decreased from +0.3 to -2.6, and +0.4 to -4.2, respectively. Fatal events related to the treatment occurred in 2% (n = 1) with proportional and none with deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

Proportional sedation achieved satisfactory symptom relief while maintaining some patients' consciousness, and deep sedation achieved good symptom relief while the majority of patients lost consciousness.

Development of a Scoring System to Determine Proportional Appropriateness of Continuous Deep Sedation: A Concept-of-Proof Study

Context: Some patients require continuous deep sedation (CDS) for refractory symptoms despite intensive palliative care. The principle of proportionality is proposed on the basis of clinical decisions, but no validated tools to assist such decision making are available. Aim: To develop a scoring system to determine whether CDS is proportionally appropriate. Subjects and Methods: A secondary analysis of a nationwide questionnaire survey of Japanese palliative care specialists was performed. Physicians were asked to rate the degree that they believed CDS to be appropriate in a total of 27 scenarios based on a combination of 3 factors with 3 levels: (1) the estimated survival (days, weeks, and months), (2) the patient's wish (clear and consistent, somewhat unclear and/or inconsistent, and unclear or inconsistent), and (3) confidence in refractoriness of the symptom (definite, probable, and unsure). Based on logistic regression analyses, a scoring system with two formulas (the proportionality score to determine that continuous deep sedation is appropriate [ProScoreCDS-appropriate] and proportionality score to determine that continuous deep sedation is inappropriate [ProScoreCDS-inappropriate]) to predict specialists' decision that CDS is appropriate or inappropriate was developed. The accuracy of the formulas was investigated. Results: Among 695 palliative care specialists, 469 returned the questionnaire (response rate, 69%) and 440 were analyzed. Logistic regression analyses identified that all three factors were significantly associated with physicians' decisions about the appropriateness of performing CDS. Using weighted value, the total score ranged from 3 to 67 for ProScoreCDS-appropriate, and 3 to 27 for ProScoreCDS-inappropriate. The area under the curve (AUC) values of ProScoreCDS-appropriate and ProScoreCDS-inappropriate were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.89) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.81-0.82), respectively. Using cutoff points of 41 and 14, sensitivity and specificity were 68.6% and 88.9% for ProScoreCDS-appropriate and 67.7% and 76.0% for ProScoreCDS-inappropriate, respectively. Conclusion: A scoring system to determine whether CDS is proportionally appropriate can be constructed, and a further study to develop a clinical tool is promising.