Palliative care physicians' perspectives of management for terminally ill cancer patients with death rattle: a nationwide survey

Death rattle: palliative nursing practices Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

Interventions for patients with death rattle remain under consideration, and their families strongly acknowledge the need for improved care. However, few reports exist concerning specific and comprehensive nursing practices for them. This study aimed to clarify nursing practices for patients with death rattle and their families in hospital wards and examine each practice's importance.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi method with expert nurses with extensive experience in end-of-life care. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. First, we developed a list of nursing practices through a literature review and individual interviews. Second, we conducted the Delphi survey. Two rounds of judging were performed. Items were rated on a 9-point Likert scale (1=not important at all to 9=very important). An item was considered 'important' if at least 80% of the participants rated it ≥7.

RESULTS

The list comprised 40 items across 8 domains: assessment of death rattle and the distress felt by the patients, oral care, repositioning, adjustment of parenteral hydration, suctioning, administration of alleviating medications, communication with and assessment of family members who witness death rattle, and nurse's attitude towards death rattle and the relevant interventions. Of the 46 recruited experts, 42 participated in both rounds. Participants regarded 37 of the 40 items as important.

CONCLUSIONS

This study specifically and comprehensively identified nursing practices for patients with death rattle and their families using a modified Delphi method to support clinical nursing practice and improve the quality of care.

Anticholinergic drugs for death rattle in dying patients with cancer: multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of anticholinergics (AC) for death rattle in dying patients with cancer.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study enrolled Terminally ill adult (20 years or older) patients with cancer who developed substantial death rattle (Back score ≥2) from 23 palliative care units in Japan. AC treatment for death rattle was prescribed according to primary physician's decision. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose death rattle improved, which was defined as a Back score of ≤1. We compared the proportion of improved cases in patients treated with (AC group) and without (non-AC group) AC, controlling potential confounders by employing propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Of the 1896 patients enrolled, we included 196 who developed a substantial death rattle. Of these, 81 received AC. 56.8% in the AC group and 35.4% in the non-AC group had an improved death rattle at 8 hours after baseline. In the weighted analysis, AC group showed significant improvements in death rattle, with an adjusted OR of 4.47 (95% CI 2.04 to 9.78; p=0.0024). All sensitivity analyses achieved essentially the same results. In the subgroup analysis, ACs were strongly associated with death rattle improvement in men, patients with lung cancer, and type 1 death rattle (adjusted OR 5.81, 8.38 and 9.32, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-weighted analysis, ACs were associated with death rattle improvement in terminally ill patients with cancer who developed substantial death rattle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN-CTR (UMIN00002545).

Should (Prophylactic) Medications Be Used for the Management of Death Rattle?

Death rattle is a common symptom in the dying phase and has impact on relatives and health care providers. One controversial topic regarding the management of death rattle in the dying phase is whether the symptom should be treated. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. The three experts have different opinions on the assessment of death rattle. This seems to depend on the unknown burden of death rattle on the patient. Explanation of the symptom and reassurance could be sufficient. But considering the known burden on some of the relatives, there might be good reasons to use medication to relieve this symptom. Whether this treatment should be performed preventively or only when death rattle develops remains an matter of debate. Further scientific, clinical, and societal debate on the concept of a "good death" for relatives, the meaning of the symptom death rattle, and the impact of medication is needed.

The impact of death rattle on bereaved families: not the sound itself, but the resonance with their feelings

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore (i) the consistency between physician-rated and bereaved family-perceived intensity of death rattle, (ii) the relationship between intensity of death rattle and the bereaved family's distress and (iii) the bereaved family's experience and feelings related to suctioning for death rattle.

METHODS

We used matched data for deceased patients from a prospective cohort study of cancer patients admitted to a palliative care unit, and their bereaved families from a nationwide questionnaire survey in Japan. The intensity of death rattle using Back's score was evaluated prospectively by physicians and retrospectively by bereaved families.

RESULTS

In total, 1122 bereaved families answered (response rate: 66.7%). Of these, 297 reported the development of death rattle. The maximum intensity of death rattle evaluated by physicians and perceived by bereaved families was poorly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.188, P = 0.082). The optimal cut-off point of Back's score for detecting high-level distress was 1/2, with a low accuracy of prediction (area under the curve 0.62). More than 70% of bereaved families indicated suctioning reduced the intensity of death rattle, made patients comfortable and themselves relieved, whereas a similar proportion felt patients were in distress during suctioning. Families who felt suctioning was gently performed and discussed well whether to do suctioning with health care providers felt less needs for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Bereaved family-perceived intensity of death rattle did not correlate to physician-evaluated intensity, and the intensity of death rattle itself seemed to poorly correlate to family distress. Gently performed suctioning based on sufficient discussion with families can help reduce family-perceived patient discomfort.