End-of-life Comfort Evaluation, is Clinic Enough? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Combined Comfort Evaluation with Analgesia/Nociception Index and Clinic in non-Communicative Patients

Background: Comfort evaluation is one of the major challenges in the palliative care setting, particularly when it comes to non-communicative patients. For this specific population, validated tools for comfort evaluation are scarce and healthcare professionals have to rely on their clinical sense and experience. Objectives: To provide arguments for the use of Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI) monitoring in order to improve clinical comfort evaluation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-communicative patients at the end of their lives whose comfort was evaluated clinically and with ANI. We focused on the coherence or discordance of clinical and ANI evaluations and on pharmacological interventions driven by them. Results: 58 evaluations from 33 patients were analyzed. Clinical and demographic characteristics were highly variable. Simultaneous clinical and ANI evaluations were concordant in 45 measurements (77.58%), leading mostly to no treatment modification when indicating comfort and to increasing anxiolytic or pain-relief treatments when indicating discomfort. Thirteen (22.41%) evaluations were discordant, leading mostly to treatment incrementation. Conclusion: We suggest that the ANI monitor is a reliable tool in the palliative setting and may help provide patients with the best symptom relief and the most appropriate therapeutics.

The conscious state of the dying patient: An integrative review

OBJECTIVES

The cognitive state of the dying in the last days of life may deteriorate, resulting in a reduced ability to communicate their care needs. Distressing symptoms, physical and existential, may go unrecognized and untreated. The objectives of this integrative review were to systematically interrogate the literature to determine the changing conscious state of dying adults and to identify changes in their care needs.

METHODS

An integrative review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020160475). The World Health Organization definition of palliative care informed the review. CINAHL, MEDLINE (OVID), Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception to October 2019 using search strategies for each database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Methodological quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for the Case Series appraisal tool. Extracted data were synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of 5,136 papers identified, 11 quantitative case series studies were included. Six themes were identified: conscious state and change over time, awareness, pain, absence of holistic care, the voiceless patient, and signs and symptoms of dying.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

In the last days of life, the physical and conscious state of the dying patient declines, resulting in an inability to express their care needs. Dignity in dying and freedom from pain and suffering are both an imperative and a human right; and unvoiced care needs can result in unnecessary suffering and distress. This review revealed that little is known about how healthcare professionals assess holistic care needs at this vulnerable time. Although much has been written about palliative and end-of-life care, the assessment of care needs when patients are no longer able to voice their own needs has largely been ignored, with little attention from clinical, educational, or research perspectives. This gap in evidence has important implications for the dying and their families.

Monitoring nociception and awareness during palliative sedation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

DESIGN

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

DATA SOURCES

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

RESULTS

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

Neurophysiological Assessments During Continuous Sedation Until Death Put Validity of Observational Assessments Into Question: A Prospective Observational Study

Introduction

In case of untreatable suffering at the end of life, continuous sedation until death (CSD) may be the only treatment option left. Because these patients cannot communicate anymore, caregivers have to rely on behavioral observation to assess the patient’s comfort. Recently, however, a number of studies from the neurosciences have shown that sometimes consciousness and pain are undetectable with these traditional behavioral methods. The aim of this study was to find out if subjective caregiver assessments of consciousness and pain would be confirmed by objective neurophysiological measures.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, we observed patients from the start of palliative sedation until death. Subjective caregiver assessments of level of consciousness and pain based on behavioral observations were compared with objective measures from neurophysiological monitoring devices.

Results

We collected and analyzed 108 subjective caregiver assessments in a sample of 12 patients and 32 assessments by traditionally used observational scales. We compared these with objective neurophysiological measures. Sensitivity and specificity of caregivers’ subjective assessments of consciousness was 23.6 and 91.1% respectively, with an accuracy of 54.0% and interrater reliability (κ) of 0.13. For pain, this was 0 and 94.79%, respectively, an accuracy of 88%, and an inter-rater reliability (κ) of − 0.063. Agreement between caregivers’ subjective assessments and objective neurophysiological measures of consciousness and pain was very poor.

Conclusions

Caregivers’ subjective assessment of level of consciousness and pain during CSD is unreliable compared with objective neurophysiological monitoring. Our results suggest that assessments of patient comfort during CSD could have been improved substantially by including objective monitoring of level of consciousness and pain.

Trial Registration

The protocol for this observational study has been registered retrospectively at Clinical-Trials.gov (ID NCT03273244).

Attitudes of Professional Caregivers and Family Members Regarding the Use of Monitoring Devices to Improve Assessments of Pain and Discomfort During Continuous Sedation Until Death

CONTEXT

Assessing consciousness and pain during continuous sedation until death (CSD) by behavior-based observational scales alone has recently been put into question. Instead, the use of monitoring technology has been suggested to make more objective and reliable assessments. Insights into which factors influence attitudes toward using these monitoring devices in a context of CSD is a first step in formulating recommendations to inform future practice.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to find out what influences professional caregivers' and family members' (FMs) attitudes regarding the use of monitors during CSD.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured face-to-face interviews with 20 professional caregivers and 15 FMs, who cared for a patient or had an FM, respectively, who took part in a study using monitoring devices. Recruitment took place in an academic hospital, a locoregional hospital, and two nursing homes, all located in Belgium. Two researchers independently analyzed the data, using grounded theory to inductively develop a model that represents the emerging attitude toward use of monitors during CSD.

RESULTS

Our model shows that the emerging attitudes toward using monitors during CSD is determined by view on CSD, desire for peace of mind, emotional valence attached to using monitors, and the realization that the sole use of behavior-based observational measures could be unreliable in a CSD context. We identified several facilitators and barriers to inform future implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

Most participants had no objections, and all participants found the use of monitoring devices during CSD feasible and acceptable. We identified a number of facilitators and barriers and suggested that being aware that care can be improved, good communication, shared decision making, and continuing professional education can overcome the identified barriers. We suggest future research would focus on developing implementation strategies and guidelines for introducing objective monitoring devices in diverse palliative care settings.

Should we include monitors to improve assessment of awareness and pain in unconscious palliatively sedated patients? A case report

BACKGROUND

Awareness and pain during palliative sedation is typically assessed by observational scales, but the use of such scales has been put into question.

CASE PRESENTATION

A woman in her mid-80s was admitted to a palliative care unit, presenting with chronic lymphatic leukemia, depression, and a cerebrovascular accident, with right-sided hemiplegia and aphasia. The patient was unable to eat and was suffering from nausea and vomiting. Before admission, the patient had expressed her desire to discontinue treatment on several occasions.

CASE MANAGEMENT

The decision was made to initiate palliative sedation. The patient consented to take part in a study to assess level of comfort and pain using two monitoring devices (NeuroSense monitor and Analgesia Nociception Index monitor).

CASE OUTCOME

The patient died 90 h after initiation of palliative sedation. Titration of the medication was challenging and sedation was not deep enough during the first 2 days. Thirteen assessments made with the Ramsay Sedation Scale showed that the patient was considered to be in a deep sleep, while in fact the NeuroSense monitor indicated otherwise.

CONCLUSION

This case demonstrates the feasibility and potential advantages of using monitoring devices to objectify assessments of pain and discomfort in palliatively sedated patients.

Comfort in palliative sedation (Compas): a transdisciplinary mixed method study protocol for linking objective assessments to subjective experiences

BACKGROUND

In case of untreatable suffering at the end of life, palliative sedation may be chosen to assure comfort by reducing the patient's level of consciousness. An important question here is whether such sedated patients are completely free of pain. Because these patients cannot communicate anymore, caregivers have to rely on observation to assess the patient's comfort. Recently however, more sophisticated techniques from the neurosciences have shown that sometimes consciousness and pain are undetectable with these traditional behavioral methods. The aim of this study is to better understand how unconscious palliative sedated patients experience the last days of their life and to find out if they are really free of pain.

METHODS

In this study we will observe 40 patients starting with initiation of palliative sedation until death. Assessment of comfort based on behavioral observations will be related with the results from a NeuroSense monitor, an EEG-based monitor used for evaluation of the adequacy of anesthesia and sedation in the operating room and an ECG-based Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) monitor, which informs about comfort or discomfort condition, based on the parasympathetic tone. An innovative and challenging aspect of this study is its qualitative approach; "objective" and "subjective" data will be linked to achieve a holistic understanding of the study topic. The following data will be collected: assessment of pain/comfort by the patients themselves (if possible) by scoring a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); brain function monitoring; monitoring of parasympathetic tone; caregivers' assessment (pain, awareness, communication); relatives' perception of the quality of the dying process; assessment by 2 trained investigators using observational scales; video and audio registration.

DISCUSSION

Measuring pain and awareness in non-communicative dying patients is both technically and ethically challenging. ANI and EEG have shown to be promising technologies to detect pain that otherwise cannot be detected with the "traditional" methods. Although these technologies have the potential to provide objective quantifiable indicators for distress and awareness in non-communicative patients, strikingly they have not yet been used to check whether the current assessments for non-communicative patients are reliable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03273244 ; registration date: 7.9.2017).

Bispectral Index Monitoring in Terminally Ill Patients: A Validation Study

CONTEXT

If regular therapies cannot relieve symptoms sufficiently in the last days of life, continuous palliative sedation may serve to reduce consciousness. Sedation level can be measured with EEG monitoring with the bispectral index (BIS) monitor.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility and validity of BIS monitoring in terminally ill patients.

METHODS

In this prospective study, BIS registrations were performed in unconscious end-of-life patients admitted to a palliative care center. Validated scores were used to measure level of sedation (Ramsay score), pain (Numeric Rating Scale or Rotterdam Elderly Pain Observations Scale), delirium (Delirium Observation Screening score), and overall comfort (Numeric Rating Scale). Validity and sensitivity to change of BIS values were considered, and the effects of medication and the time till death on BIS values were evaluated in a linear mixed model analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included for analysis. BIS monitoring was acceptable to patients, relatives, and medical staff. BIS values were moderately correlated with Ramsay scores (0.46) but were highly variable for deeply sedated patients. BIS values changed significantly before and after a midazolam dose (P < 0.001). Midazolam treatment resulted on average in a statistically significant reduction of the BIS values (-4.5, 95% CI -7.0 to -2.0), whereas morphine and haloperidol did not.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first validation studies in which BIS monitoring in end-of-life patients is described. BIS monitoring is feasible in unconscious terminally ill patients. However, based on our results, the wide range of BIS values in deeply sedated and comfortable patients seems to hamper its use in daily clinical practice.