"The death rattle" in the intensive care unit after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in neurological patients

End-Of-Life Care in the Potential Donor after Circulatory Death: A Systematic Review

Background

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is becoming increasingly common, yet little is known about the way potential donors receive end-of-life care.

Purpose

The aims of this systematic review are to describe the current practice in end-of-life care for potential donors and identify metrics that are being used to assess discomfort among these patients.

Research design and Study Sample

This review encompasses published literature between June 1, 2000 and June 31, 2020 of end-of-life care received by potential DCD patients. The population of interest was defined as patients eligible for Maastracht classification III donation after circulatory death for a solid organ transplantation. Outcomes examined included: analgesic or palliative protocols, and surrogates of discomfort (eg dyspnea, agitation).

Results

Among 141 unique articles, 27 studies were included for full review. The primary reason for exclusion was lack of protocol description, or lack of reporting on analgesic medications. No primary research studies specifically examined distress in the DCD eligible population. Numerous professional guidelines were identified. Surveys of critical care practitioners identified concerns regarding the impact of symptom management on hastening the dying process in the DCD population as a potential barrier to end-of-life palliative treatment.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of empirical evidence for end-of-life symptom assessment and management for DCD patients. Key evidence gaps identified for DCD include the need for: i) a multidisciplinary structure of treatment teams and preferred environment for DCD, ii) objective tools for monitoring of distress in this patient population, and iii) evidence guiding the administration of analgesic medications following withdrawal of life sustaining therapy.

Interventions for noisy breathing in patients near to death

BACKGROUND

Noisy breathing (death rattle) occurs in 23 to 92% of people who are dying. The cause of death rattle remains unproven but is presumed to be due to an accumulation of secretions in the airways. It is therefore managed physically (repositioning and clearing the upper airways of fluid with a mechanical sucker) or pharmacologically (with anticholinergic drugs).

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions used to treat death rattle in patients close to death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), before and after studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies in adults and children with death rattle were sought by MEDLINE (1966 to 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 2007), CINAHL (1980 to 2007), the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In addition, the reference lists of all relevant trials and reports were checked and investigators who are known to be researching this area were contacted for unpublished data or knowledge of the grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs, controlled before and after studies and ITS reporting the outcome of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for treating death rattle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by two independent review authors and trials were quality scored. There was insufficient data to carry out an analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies were identified, of which only one study met the inclusion criteria. This small study was a randomised placebo-controlled trial of the use of hyoscine hydrobromide in patients with death rattle. Hyoscine hydrobromide tended to reduce death rattle compared to placebo but this was not significant. A larger randomised study, comparing atropine, hyoscine butylbromide and scopolamine, is in progress.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to show that any intervention, be it pharmacological or non-pharmacological, is superior to placebo in the treatment of death rattle. We acknowledge that in the face of heightened emotions when death is imminent, it is difficult for staff not to intervene. It is therefore likely that the current therapeutic options will continue to be used. However, patients need to be closely monitored for lack of therapeutic benefit and adverse effects while relatives need time, explanation and reassurance to relieve their fears and concerns. There is a need for more well-designed multi-centre studies with objective outcome measures and the ability to recruit sufficient numbers.