Drug-induced terminal sedation for symptom control

Characterisation of palliative sedation use in inpatients at a medium-stay palliative care unit

Background

Palliative sedation has been used to refer to the practice of providing symptom control through the administration of sedative drugs. The objective of this article was to characterise palliative sedation use in inpatients at a medium-stay palliative care unit.

Material and methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 125 randomly selected patients (aged 15 or older) who had died in 2014. The Palliative Performance Scale was used to evaluate the functional status.

Results

Palliative sedation was documented in 34.4% of the patients and midazolam was the most commonly used sedative agent (86.0%). More than half (53.5%) of those who recieved sedation presented with delirium. Liver dysfunction was more frequent in the sedated patients (p=0.033) and patients with heart disease were less likely (p=0.026) to be sedated.

Conclusion

Palliative sedation is an ethically accepted practice. It was commonly midazolam-induced, and differences were documented, among sedated and non-sedated patients, in terms of liver dysfunction and heart disease.

Reflections on palliative sedation

'Palliation sedation' is a widely used term to describe the intentional administration of sedatives to reduce a dying person's consciousness to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms. Research studies generally focus on either 'continuous sedation until death' or 'continuous deep sedation'. It is not always clear whether instances of secondary sedation (i.e. caused by specific symptom management) have been excluded. Continuous deep sedation is controversial because it ends a person's 'biographical life' (the ability to interact meaningfully with other people) and shortens 'biological life'. Ethically, continuous deep sedation is an exceptional last resort measure. Studies suggest that continuous deep sedation has become 'normalized' in some countries and some palliative care services. Of concern is the dissonance between guidelines and practice. At the extreme, there are reports of continuous deep sedation which are best described as non-voluntary (unrequested) euthanasia. Other major concerns relate to its use for solely non-physical (existential) reasons, the under-diagnosis of delirium and its mistreatment, and not appreciating that unresponsiveness is not the same as unconsciousness (unawareness). Ideally, a multiprofessional palliative care team should be involved before proceeding to continuous deep sedation. Good palliative care greatly reduces the need for continuous deep sedation.

How defining clinical practices may influence their evaluation: the case of continuous sedation at the end of life

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Continuous sedation at the end of life is an end-of-life practice that has gained considerable attention in the international literature. Nevertheless, significant confusion persists, even on how to label or define the practice. Several different terms and definitions exist, and these are often non-neutral and indicative of one's normative position on sedation at the end of life. This is problematic for two reasons. First, the use of such value-laden terms or definitions of continuous sedation may make it difficult, if not impossible, to agree on the facts surrounding continuous sedation. Second, including normative criteria in a definition can lead one to make disguised circular or tautological statements.

METHODS

This paper identifies commonly used terms and definitions and demonstrates how particular elements present in these are value-laden and can influence the ethical evaluation of continuous sedation at the end of life.

RESULTS

Two commonly used terms, 'palliative sedation' and 'terminal sedation', have been strongly criticized. We propose to use another, more descriptive term, namely 'continuous sedation at the end of life'. As regards the different definitions of sedation, some are general, but most contain very specific elements, thereby clearly limiting the number of cases that are covered by the definition. Some definitions of sedation include the intention one should (not) have, the possible indications for the practice, and the type of patients the practice should be reserved for.

CONCLUSION

Including value-laden elements in the very definition of a clinical practice runs the risk of pre-empting a proper normative debate about the practice. We explain why this is the case and why it is problematic, and we propose an alternative, descriptive, definition that seeks to avoid these problems.

Addressing the Concerns Surrounding Continuous Deep Sedation in Singapore and Southeast Asia: A Palliative Care Approach

The application of continuous deep sedation (CDS) in the treatment of intractable suffering at the end of life continues to be tied to a number of concerns that have negated its use in palliative care. Part of the resistance towards use of this treatment option of last resort has been the continued association of CDS with physician-associated suicide and/or euthanasia (PAS/E), which is compounded by a lack clinical guidelines and a failure to cite this treatment under the aegis of a palliative care approach. I argue that reinstituting a palliative care-inspired approach that includes a holistic review of the patient's situation and the engagement of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) guided by clearly defined practice requirements that have been lacking amongst many prevailing guidelines will overcome prevailing objections to this practice and allow for the legitimization of this process.

Continuous Deep Sedation Until Death: Palliation or Physician-Assisted Death?

Published literature have not discerned end-of-life palliative versus life-shortening effects of pharmacologically maintaining continuous deep sedation until death (ie, dying in deep sleep) compared with common sedation practices relieving distress in the final conscious phase of dying. Continuous deep sedation predictably suppresses brainstem vital centers and shortens life. Continuous deep sedation remains controversial as palliation for existential suffering and in elective death requests by discontinuation of chronic ventilation or circulatory support with mechanical devices. Continuous deep sedation contravenes the double-effect principle because: (1) it induces permanent coma (intent of action) for the contingency relief of suffering and for social isolation (desired outcomes) and (2) because of its predictable and proportional life-shortening effect. Continuous deep sedation should be distinguished from common sedation practices for palliation and characterized instead as physician-assisted death.

Palliative sedation in a southern Appalachian community

Of 1200 palliative care patients, 28 received palliative sedation. They were more likely than patients without palliative sedation to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 3, a cancer diagnosis, an expected survival of weeks or less, to have been monitored by the palliative care team for at least 1 week, to have delirium as the cause of decreased communication, to have dyspnea as a non-pain symptom, and to be less able to communicate symptoms. Almost 90% received palliative sedation for at least 24 hours for a median of 3 days (range, 0 to 24 days). Home patients received palliative sedation longer. Symptoms were controlled in 82% and improved in the rest. Sedation developed in 79% but was not required for symptom control in 5. Patient survival from palliative care consultation was a median of 8 days (range, 0 to 32 days).

Attitudes towards terminal sedation: an empirical survey among experts in the field of medical ethics

Background

"Terminal sedation" regarded as the use of sedation in (pre-)terminal patients with treatment-refractory symptoms is controversially discussed not only within palliative medicine. While supporters consider terminal sedation as an indispensable palliative medical treatment option, opponents disapprove of it as "slow euthanasia". Against this background, we interviewed medical ethics experts by questionnaire on the term and the moral acceptance of terminal sedation in order to find out how they think about this topic. We were especially interested in whether experts with a professional medical and nursing background think differently about the topic than experts without this background.

Methods

The survey was carried out by questionnaire; beside the provided answering options free text comments were possible. As test persons we chose the 477 members of the German Academy for Ethics in Medicine, an interdisciplinary society for medical ethics.

Results

281 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate = 59%). The majority of persons without medical background regarded "terminal sedation" as an intentional elimination of consciousness until the patient's death occurs; persons with a medical background generally had a broader understanding of the term, including light or intermittent forms of sedation. 98% of the respondents regarded terminal sedation in dying patients with treatment-refractory physical symptoms as acceptable. Situations in which the dying process has not yet started, in which untreatable mental symptoms are the indication for terminal sedation or in which life-sustaining measures are withdrawn during sedation were evaluated as morally difficult.

Conclusion

The survey reveals a great need for research and discussion on the medical indication as well as on the moral evaluation of terminal sedation. Prerequisite for this is a more precise terminology which describes the circumstances of the sedation.

Sedation in clinical oncology

The clinical status of terminal cancer patients is very complex and is affected by several severe symptoms, of extended duration, changing with time and of multifactorial origin. When there are no reasonable cancer treatments specifically able to modify the natural history of the disease, symptom control acquires priority and favours the possible better adaptation to the general inexorable deterioration related to the neoplasic progression. Despite the important advances in Palliative Medicine, symptoms are frequently observed that are intolerable for the patient and which do not respond to usual palliative measures. This situation, characterised by rapid deterioration of the patient, very often heralds, implicitly or explicitly, approaching death. The intolerable nature and being refractory to treatment indicates to the health-care team, on many occasions, the need for sedation of the patient. The requirement for sedation of the cancer patient is a situation that does not allow for an attitude of doubt regarding maintenance of the patient in unnecessary suffering for more than a reasonable time. Given the undoubted clinical difficulty in its indication, it is important to have explored at an earlier stage all usual treatments possible and the grade of response, commensurate with the patient's values and desires. Sedation consists of the deliberate administration of drugs in minimum doses and combinations required not only to reduce the consciousness of the patients but also to achieve adequate alleviation of one or more refractory symptoms, and with the prior consent given by the patient explicitly, or implicitly or delegated. Sedation is accepted as ethically warranted when considering the imperative of palliation and its administration and, whenever contemplated, the arguments that justify them are clear recorded in the clinical history. It is not an easy decision for the physician since, traditionally, the training has been "for the fight to save life". Nevertheless, it seems necessary to make some preparations regarding these problems that have a central affect on the clinical oncologist in his daily function.

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.

Sedation for intractable distress in the dying--a survey of experts

Terminal sedation is a phrase that has appeared in the palliative care literature in the last few years. There has not been a clear definition proposed for this term, nor has there been any agreement on the frequency with which the technique is used. A postal survey of 61 selected palliative care experts (59 physicians, two nurses) was carried out to examine their response to a proposed definition for 'terminal sedation', to estimate the frequency of this practice and the reasons for its use, to identify the drugs and dosages used, to determine the outcome, and to explore the decision-making process. Opinions on physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia were also sought. Eighty-seven per cent of the experts responded from eight countries, although predominantly from Canada and the United Kingdom. Forty per cent agreed unequivocally with the proposed definition, while 4% disagreed completely. Eighty-nine per cent agreed that 'terminal sedation' is sometimes necessary and 77% reported using it in the last 12 months--over half of these for up to four patients. Reasons for using this method included various physical and psychological symptoms. The most common drugs used were midazolam and methotrimeprazine. Decision making usually involved the patient or family, and varied with respect to the ease with which the decision was made. The use of sedation was perceived to be successful in 90 out of 100 patients recalled. Ninety per cent of respondents did not support legalization of euthanasia. In conclusion, sedating agents are used by palliative care experts as tools for the management of symptoms. The term 'terminal sedation' should be abandoned and replaced with the phrase 'sedation for intractable distress in the dying'. Further research into the management of intractable symptoms and suffering is warranted.

A comparison of the use of sedatives in a hospital support team and in a hospice

This study examines how frequently and for what indications sedatives are prescribed in a hospital support team and in a hospice. We also looked at the survival of sedated patients from the date of admission and from the start of sedation. Overall 26% of patients were prescribed sedatives in order to sedate them (31% at the hospice and 21% at the hospital) and 43% of patients were given sedatives for symptom control (67% at the hospice and 21% at the hospital). Sedated patients survived for a mean of 1.3 days after the start of sedation, and there was no detectable difference in survival from the date of admission between sedated and nonsedated patients.

Respiratory symptoms in children dying from malignant disease

Shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms frequently complicate the symptomatic management of terminally ill adults. The extent of the problem in children is not known, but anecdotal evidence from nurses and physicians experienced in paediatric oncology has suggested that respiratory problems are less frequent in children dying from malignant disease than in adults. This is a retrospective review of all children dying from cancer under the care of the symptom care team at the Royal Marsden Hospital between 1982 and 1993. The results show that respiratory symptoms were recorded during the last three months of life in 40% of analysable case histories. The nature of respiratory symptoms in paediatric cancer patients is discussed.