Sedation for the care of patients with advanced cancer

Sedation in the context of palliative medicine is the monitored use of medications to induce varying degrees of unconsciousness to bring about a state of decreased or absent awareness (i.e. unconsciousness) in order to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering. Sedation is used in palliative care in several settings: transient controlled sedation, sedation in the management of refractory symptoms at the end of life, emergency sedation, respite sedation, and sedation for refractory psychological or existential suffering. Sedation is controversial in that it diminishes the capacity of the patient to interact, function, and, in some cases, live. There is no distinct ethical problem in the use of sedation to relieve otherwise intolerable suffering in patients who are dying. Since all medical treatments involve risks and benefits, each potential option must be evaluated for its promise with regards to achieving the goals of care. When risks of treatment are involved, to be justified these risks must be proportionate to the gravity of the clinical indication. Some aspects of management, such as the need for hydration in patients undergoing sedation and the use of sedation in the management of psychological and spiritual suffering, remain controversial.

Continuous deep sedation: physicians' experiences in six European countries

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is sometimes used to treat refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. The aim of this paper was to estimate the frequency and characteristics of CDS in six European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Deaths reported to death registries were sampled and the reporting doctors received a mailed questionnaire about the medical decision making that preceded the death of the patient. The total number of deaths studied was 20,480. The response rate ranged between 44% (Italy) and 75% (The Netherlands). Of all deaths, CDS was applied in 2.5% in Denmark and up to 8.5% in Italy. Of all patients receiving CDS, 35% (Italy) and up to 64% (Denmark and The Netherlands) did not receive artificial nutrition or hydration. Patients who received CDS were more often male, younger than 80 years old, more likely to have had cancer, and died more often in a hospital compared to nonsudden deaths without CDS. The high variability of frequency and characteristics of CDS in the studied European countries points out the importance of medical education and scientific debate on this issue.

Effects of opioids and sedatives on survival in an Australian inpatient palliative care population

AIMS

To assess whether opioid and sedative medication use affects survival (from hospice admission to death) of patients in an Australian inpatient palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND

Retrospective audit. Newcastle Mercy Hospice--a tertiary referral palliative care unit. All patients who died in the hospice between 1 February and 31 December 2000.

METHODS

Length of survival from hospice admission to death, and the median and mean doses of opioids and sedatives used in the last 24 h of life. Comparison of these with published studies outside of Australia.

RESULTS

In this study, the use of opioids, benzodiazepines and haloperidol did not have an association with shortened survival and the only statistical significant finding was an increased survival in patients who were on 300 mg/day or more of oral morphine equivalent (OME). The proportion of patients requiring greater than or equal to 300 mg OME/day (at 28%) was higher than published studies, but the mean dose of 371 mg OME/day was within the range of other studies. The proportion of patients receiving sedatives (94%) was higher than other studies, but the median dose of parenteral midazolam equivalent of 12.5 mg per 24 h was lower than other studies from outside Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no association between the doses of opioids and sedatives on the last day of life and survival (from hospice admission to death) in this population of palliative care patients.

Development of a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy using the Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Although palliative sedation therapy is often used in palliative care settings, no clinical guideline is available.

OBJECTIVE

To construct a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy.

DESIGN

The consensus methods using the Delphi technique on the basis of a systematic literature review was used.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

A national multidisciplinary committee (five palliative care physicians, four nurses, two oncologists, two psychiatrists, two anesthesiologists, two bioethicists, a medical social worker, and a lawyer).

MEASUREMENTS

Validity scoring based on the Delphi method and feasibility.

RESULTS

After three sequential sessions of discussion by the Delphi method, an external review by specialists, end-users, and bereaved family members, and a field test, a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy was constructed. This guideline includes definitions of palliative sedation therapy, description of the ethical basis of palliative sedation therapy, recommendations about clinical practices in continuous-deep sedation, and diagrams illustrating the clinical application of continuous-deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

We constructed a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy using the Delphi technique. The clinical efficacy of this guideline should be tested in the future.

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.

Terminal restlessness: perspectives of an interdisciplinary palliative care team

AIM

To explore an interdisciplinary team's perceptions of families' needs and experiences surrounding terminal restlessness.

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory design using two focus groups.

SAMPLE

Participants were members of an interdisciplinary palliative care team working in a palliative care unit in a university teaching hospital in Israel.

RESULTS

The palliative care team confronted several challenging and stressful issues surrounding the management of terminal restlessness that influenced their treatment decisions and relationships with families. Four themes reflected the participants' perceptions and experiences: suffering, maintaining control, feelings of ambivalence and valuing communication to reduce conflict.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest the need for comprehensive treatment plans to meet the special supportive and information needs of these families, specific supportive strategies for the professional caregivers and further studies to develop ethical criteria and evidence-based guidelines for the use of sedation in the management of terminal restlessness.

Implementing Institutional Change: An Institutional Case Study of Palliative Sedation

Palliative sedation is used in the rare patient who has intractable distress at the end of life. Implementation of palliative sedation, however, may meet resistance from various clinicians and other hospital staff. To ensure that our patients had access to this important treatment modality, we found it necessary to engage in a process of institutional change that resulted in acceptance of the use of palliative sedation in the non-ICU setting.* In this paper, we will review the processes we found to be successful in hopes that they will also be efficacious for others wishing to produce similar change within their institutions. We first will review the theoretical foundations described in organizational development and change management literature. Next we describe our implementation strategies (including education, multidisciplinary alliances, and the development and approval of a practice guideline). Finally, we discuss in detail the role of interpersonal interactions. Three clinical cases are used to demonstrate the change in attitudes, processes, and outcomes.

Sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms in the imminently dying: A fine intentional line

There is a continuum of the goals of comfort and function in palliative care that begins with comfort and function being equal priorities and sedation being unacceptable. As disease progresses, the goals and preferences of the patient turn to coping with the loss of function caused by the disease and acceptance of unintentional sedation from the disease, its therapies, or symptom relief interventions. As patients approach the end of life, they may need intentional sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms. Such sedation can be divided into three categories: routine, infrequent, and extraordinary with respect to the frequency, difficulty, and risks involved with the drugs and routes of administration required to induce and maintain a level of sedation that relieves the patient's physical and existential symptoms. Extraordinary sedation with continuous infusions of midazolam, thiopental, and propofol can relieve refractory symptoms in most patients in their final days of life. Palliative care clinicians should become comfortable with the ethical justification and technical expertise needed to provide this essential, extraordinary care to the small but deserving number of patients in whom routine and infrequent sedation does not adequately relieve their suffering.

Sedation for Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer with Uncontrollable Physical Distress

BACKGROUND

Relief of distressful symptoms in terminally ill patients with cancer is of prime importance. Use of sedation to accomplish this has been the focus of recent medical studies in countries other than Japan. We investigated the influence on consciousness of sedative drugs in a Japanese hospice.

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

We defined sedation as medical procedure to decrease level of consciousness in order to relieve severe physical distress refractory to standard interventions. We excluded increases in doses of morphine or other analgesic drugs resulting in secondary somnolence from the present study. We reviewed medical records of patients receiving sedation among 124 consecutive patients admitted to our palliative care unit between January and December in 1999.

RESULTS

The 63 patients who received sedation (50.3%) died an average of 3.4 days after its initiation. Major symptoms requiring sedation were dyspnea, general malaise/restlessness, pain, agitation, and nausea/vomiting. The Palliative Performance Status (PPS) just before sedation was 20 or less in 83% of patients. Drugs administered for sedation were midazolam, haloperidol, scopolamine hydrobromide, and chlorpromazine. During the few days before death, sedated patients were significantly more drowsy and less responsive than that in those receiving non-sedative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest the effectiveness of sedation in relieving severe, refractory physical symptoms in terminally ill Japanese patients with cancer. Further investigation to confirm safety and effectiveness of sedation in this context is warranted.

Social work competencies in palliative and end-of-life care

Social workers from clinical, academic, and research settings met in 2002 for a national Social Work Leadership Summit on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. Participants placed the highest priority on the development and broad dissemination of a summary document of the state-of-the-art practice of social work in palliative and end-of-life care. Nine Summit participants reviewed the literature and constructed this detailed description of the knowledge, skills, and values that are requisite for the unique, essential, and appropriate role of social work. This comprehensive statement delineates individual, family, group, team, community, and organizational interventions that extend across settings, cultures, and populations and encompasses advocacy, education, training, clinical practice, community organization, administration, supervision, policy, and research. This document is intended to guide preparation and credentialing of professional social workers, to assist interdisciplinary colleagues in their collaboration with social workers, and to provide the background for the testing of quality indicators and "best practice" social work interventions.

Family experience with palliative sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients

Symptomatic sedation is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, and could cause significant distress to their family. The aims of this study were to clarify the family experience during palliative sedation therapy, including their satisfaction and distress levels, and the determinants of family dissatisfaction and high-level distress. A multicenter questionnaire survey assessed 280 bereaved families of cancer patients who received sedation in 7 palliative care units in Japan. A total of 185 responses were analyzed(response rate, 73%). The families reported that 69% of the patients were considerably or very distressed before sedation. Fifty-five percent of the patients expressed an explicit wish for sedation, and 89% of families were clearly informed. Overall, 78% of the families were satisfied with the treatment, whereas 25% expressed a high level of emotional distress. The independent determinants of low levels of family satisfaction were: poor symptom palliation after sedation, insufficient information-giving, concerns that sedation might shorten the patient's life, and feelings that there might be other ways to achieve symptom relief The independent determinants of high levels of family distress were: poor symptom palliation after sedation, feeling the burden of responsibility for the decision, feeling unprepared for changes in the patient's condition, feeling that the physicians and nurses were not sufficiently compassionate, and shorter interval to patient death. Palliative sedation therapy was principally performed to relieve severe suffering based on family and patient consent. Although the majority of families were comfortable with this practice, clinicians should minimize family distress by regular monitoring of patient distress and timely modification of sedation protocols, providing sufficient information, sharing the responsibility of the decision, facilitating grief and providing emotional support.

Palliative sedation to relieve psycho-existential suffering of terminally ill cancer patients

To clarify the prevalence and the characteristics of patients who received palliative sedation therapy for psycho-existential suffering, a questionnaire was sent to 105 responsible physicians at all certified palliative care units in Japan. The participants were requested to report the number of patients who received continuous deep sedation for refractory psycho-existential suffering during the past year, and to provide details of the 2 most recent patients. A total of 81 physicians returned questionnaires (response rate, 80%). Twenty-nine physicians (36%) reported clinical experience in continuous deep sedation for psycho-existential suffering. The overall prevalence of continuous deep sedation was calculated as 1.0% (90 cases/8,661 total patient deaths), and a total of 46 patient histories were collected. Performance status just before sedation was 3 or 4 in 96%, and predicted survival was 3 weeks or less in 94%. The suffering requiring sedation was feeling of meaninglessness/worthlessness (61%), burden on others/dependency/inability to take care of oneself (48%), death anxiety/fear/panic (33%), wish to control the time of death by oneself (24%), and isolation/lack of social support (22%). Before sedation, intermittent sedation and specialized psychiatric, psychological, and/or religious care had been performed in 94% and 59%, respectively; 89% of 26 depressed patients had received antidepressant medications. All competent patients (n=37) expressed explicit requests for sedation, and family consent was obtained in all cases where family members were available (n=45). Palliative sedation for psycho-existential suffering was performed in exceptional cases in specialized palliative care units in Japan. The patient condition was generally very poor, and the suffering was refractory to intermittent sedation and specialized psychiatric, psychological, and/or religious care. Sedation was performed on the basis of patient and family consent. These findings suggest that palliative sedation for psycho-existential suffering could be ethically permissible in exceptional cases if the proportionality and autonomy principle is applied. More discussion about the role of palliative sedation therapy for refractory psycho-existential suffering in end-of-life care is urgently necessary.

Emotional burden of nurses in palliative sedation therapy

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, and may cause emotional burden for nurses. The primary aims of this study were 1) to clarify the levels of nurses' emotional burden related to sedation, and 2) to identify the factors contributing to the burden levels.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey of 3187 nurses, with a response rate of 82%.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of the nurses (n = 2607) had clinical experience in continuous-deep sedation. Thirty per cent reported that they wanted to leave their current work situation due to sedation-related burden (answering occasionally, often, or always). Also, 12% of the nurses stated that being involved in sedation was a burden, 12% that they felt helpless when patients received sedation, 11% that they would avoid a situation in which they had to perform sedation if possible, and 4% that they felt what they had done was of no value when they performed sedation. The higher nurse-perceived burden was significantly associated with shorter clinical experience, nurse-perceived insufficient time in caring for patients, lack of common understanding of sedation between physicians and nurses, team conference unavailability, frequent experience of conflicting wishes for sedation between patient and family, nurse-perceived inadequate interpersonal skills, belief that it was difficult to diagnose refractory symptoms, belief that sedation would hasten death, belief that sedation was ethically indistinguishable from euthanasia, nurse-perceived inadequate coping with their own grief, and nurses' personal values contradictory to sedation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of nurses felt serious emotional burden related to sedation. To relieve nurses' emotional burden, we encourage 1) management efforts to reduce work overload, 2) a team approach to resolving conflicting opinions, especially between physicians and nurses, 3) co-ordination of early patient-family meetings to clarify their preferred end-of-life care, 4) education and training about sedation specifically focused on interpersonal skills, systematic approaches to diagnosing refractory symptoms, minimum life-threatening potency in sedation, and ethical principals differentiating sedation from euthanasia, and 5) exploring nurses' personal values through the patient-centered principle.

Ethical challenges in the care of patients with serious illness

The approach to management of patients with advanced disease and serious illness has been strongly influenced by advances in science and technology, the increasing role of ethics in clinical practice, and the recognition of new rights and social changes. At the present time, decision making is modulated by ethical and legal considerations. One of the challenges of clinical practice is to maintain the delicate balance between the technical aspects and the humanistic aspects of care. For the resolution of this challenge, this article proposes an ethical and legal framework that considers the goals of care and respects the basic values of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Ethical and legal principles complement sound medical practice but should never replace it. At all times, clarification of the medical situation, good communication, and information about state of the art treatment proposals are essential. In the context of advanced illness, the most prominent issues relate to decision making, justice, and research.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of psychosocial distress at the end of life

After years of neglect, care at the end of life is receiving increasing attention and concern. It is then that the body is consumed by a progressive and mortal illness, and the person must cope not only with the bodily symptoms, but also with the existential crisis of the end of life and approaching death. As the body suffers, the mind is indeed “commanded … to suffer with the body,” as Shakespeare so well described. Thus, suffering near the end of life encompasses both the mind and the body. Providing optimal symptom relief and alleviation of suffering is the highest priority. However, evidence suggests that we continue to fall far short of this ideal (American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1996; Cassem, 1997; Cassel & Foley, 1999; Carver & Foley, 2000). Although pain management guidelines have been the most widely disseminated, we know that many patients continue to suffer not only from pain, but other troubling physical symptoms in their final days (American Nursing Association, 1991; Carr et al., 1994; American Pain Society, 1995; American Academy of Neurology, 1996; American Board of Internal Medicine, 1996; Ahmedzai, 1998). Despite clear advances in the identification and treatment of psychiatric disorders, we continue to underdiagnose and undertreat the debilitating symptoms of depression, anxiety, and delirium in the final stages of life (Carroll et al., 1993; Hirschfeld et al., 1997; Holland, 1997, 1998, 1999; Breitbart et al., 2000; Chochinov & Breitbart, 2000). And, beyond these physical and psychological symptoms, we fall even shorter of our goals of alleviating the spiritual, psychosocial, and existential suffering of the dying patient and family (Cherny & Portenoy, 1994; Cherny et al., 1996; Fitchett & Handzo, 1998; Karasu, 2000). And this is in spite of the ethical imperative “to comfort always” (Pellegrino, 2000).

Epidural Analgesia at End of Life: Facing Empirical Contraindications

In a patient with unbearable cancer pain at the end of life, long-lasting analgesia without impairment of consciousness could only be achieved with an epidural infusion of local anesthetics combined with opioids and clonidine. Despite leptomeningeal infection during prolonged treatment, epidural analgesia at the lumbar level provided analgesia using very large doses of local anesthetics combined with clonidine and morphine. Thus, terminal sedation was avoided, allowing the patient's end-of-life planning of an "aware" death surrounded by her family. It may be useful to reconsider institutional pain management standards when unbearable pain occurs in patients with limited life expectancy.

IMPLICATIONS

We report a patient with severe visceral and neurogenic pain from metastatic carcinoma of the colon resistant to multimodal oral analgesic therapy. Although there were empirical contraindications, epidural analgesia was successful, allowing the patient's end-of-life planning of an "aware" death surrounded by the family.

Hospice enrollment and pain assessment and management in nursing homes

This study compared pain assessment and management in the last 48 hours of life for hospice and nonhospice nursing home residents. Included were 209 hospice and 172 nonhospice residents in 28 nursing homes in six geographic areas. Hospice patients were considered short-stay (seven days or less) (n=51), or longer-stay (over seven days) (n=158). Of residents not in a hospital or a coma (n=265), 33% of nonhospice residents, 6% of short-stay and 7% of longer-stay hospice residents had no documented pain assessment (P<0.05). For those with pain documented (n=93), longer-stay hospice residents, compared to nonhospice residents, had a significantly greater likelihood of having received an opioid (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 5.4; 95% CI 1.3, 21.7), and an opioid at least twice a day (AOR 2.7; 95% CI 0.9, 7.7; P=0.07). Study results suggest that hospice enrollment improves pain assessment and management for nursing home residents; they also document the need for continued improvement of pain management in nursing homes.

The impact on the family of terminal restlessness and its management

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore and describe the impact of terminal restlessness and its management upon family members who were witness to the event. Approximately 25%-85% of terminally ill patients may experience the symptoms associated with terminal restlessness during the hours or days before their death. They may be physically agitated and cognitively impaired and often appear to be suffering. Treatment of these severe symptoms usually involves the use of sedating medications that can affect these patients' ability to communicate with their families. Using a phenomenological research approach, two focus groups and 20 individual interviews were held with bereaved family members and hospice staff. A content analysis of the data resulted in the emergence of several core themes that reflected the participants' perceptions and experiences; the multidimensionality of suffering, the need for communication, feelings of ambivalence, the need for information and sensitivity and respect. It is suggested that the development and implementation of a multiprofessional team protocol could address the specific concerns, information and care needs of these families at this critical time.

Development of a clinical practice guideline for palliative sedation

Palliative sedation is an effective symptom control strategy for patients who suffer from intractable symptoms at the end of life. Evidence suggests that the use of this practice varies considerably. In order to minimize variation in the practice of palliative sedation within our health region, we developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the use of palliative sedation. Using available evidence from the literature, a five step process was employed to develop the CPG: (1) a working group was charged with the mandate to develop a draft guideline; (2) a working definition for palliative sedation was developed; (3) criteria for use of sedation were determined; (4) critical steps to be taken prior to initiation of sedation were defined; and (5) the CPG was reviewed by local stakeholders. Feedback from the wider group of stakeholders was used to arrive at the final CPG, which subsequently received approval from the local Medical Advisory Board. The process used to develop the CPG served to develop consensus within the local community of palliative care clinicians regarding the practice of palliative sedation. Subsequently, the CPG was used as a tool for educating other health care providers.

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.

The use of opioids and sedatives at the end of life

Opioids and sedative drugs are commonly used to control symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. However, it is often assumed that the use of these drugs inevitably results in shortening of life. Ethically, this outcome is excused by reference to the doctrine of double effect. In this review, we assess the evidence for patterns of use of opioids and sedatives in palliative care and examine whether the doctrine of double effect is needed to justify their use. We conclude that patients are more likely to receive higher doses of both opioids and sedatives as they get closer to death. However, there is no evidence that initiation of treatment, or increases in dose of opioids or sedatives, is associated with precipitation of death. Thus, we conclude that the doctrine of double effect is not essential for justification of the use of these drugs, and may act as a deterrent to the provision of good symptom control.

Correlation of the dose of midazolam for symptom control with administration periods: the possibility of tolerance

Although tolerance to midazolam is sometimes described in the palliative care literature, no studies have systemically examined the possibility. To explore the association between midazolam dose for symptom palliation and the administration period, a retrospective study was performed on 62 terminally ill cancer patients who required parenteral midazolam in the final three days of life. The mean maximum dose and administration period of midazolam were 38 +/- 45 mg/day (median = 24) and 10 +/- 19 days (median = 2.5), respectively. Thirteen patients (21%) received midazolam at a dose of 60 mg/day or more, and 13 patients (21%) received it for 14 days or longer. The maximum doses were significantly correlated with patient age (rho = -0.32, P = 0.012) and the administration period (rho = 0.47, P < 0.01); and were significantly higher in patients who received midazolam for 14 days or longer (74 +/- 63 mg/day vs. 28 +/- 34 mg/day, P < 0.01). Multivariate analyses revealed that younger age (< or =70) and longer administration periods (> or =14 days) were independent determinants for a midazolam requirement of 60 mg/day or more (odds ratios [95% C.I.] = 0.091 [0.009 - 0.92], P = 0.042; 11 [2.3 - 54], P < 0.01; respectively). The significant correlation of midazolam doses with administration period suggests that the longer use of midazolam can result in the development of tolerance. This finding suggests that midazolam should be reserved for patients with limited prognoses.

Definition of sedation for symptom relief: a systematic literature review and a proposal of operational criteria

Although sedation for symptom relief in terminally ill patients has been the focus of recent medical studies, the interpretation of research findings is difficult due to the confusing terminology. To clarify the agreements and inconsistencies in the definitions of sedation, a systematic review was performed. We searched the literature through MEDLINE from 1990 to July 2001. A total of 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies included the use of sedative medications or the intention to reduce patient consciousness as an essential element of sedation. All but one study explicitly described that the primary aim of sedation was symptom palliation. Three definitions stated that target symptoms were severe, and 4 articles reported the refractory nature of the distress. On the other hand, there were marked inconsistencies in the definition of the degree of sedation, duration, pharmacological properties of medications used, target symptoms, and target populations. This review suggests that sedation includes two core factors: the presence of severe suffering refractory to standard palliative management, and the use of sedative medications with the primary aim to relieve distress. Thus, "palliative sedation therapy" can be defined as "the use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable and refractory distress by the reduction in patient consciousness." The marked inconsistencies in the definition of sedation should be considered to be subcategories of palliative sedation therapy, and we recommend that researchers define the degree of sedation, duration, pharmacological properties of medications, target symptoms, and target populations in future studies. This clarification of terminology will contribute to improving the accuracy and depth of sedation research.

Sedation for comfort at end of life

Treatment for patients who are dying from cancer and are suffering with physiologic and existential symptoms is an important and valuable skill for health care providers. However, the treatment for suffering at the end of life and the use of sedation for comfort often are misunderstood. The following is a discussion of the clinical skills and ethical considerations that health care providers should have when treating terminal patients with cancer.

Preferences for palliative sedation therapy in the Japanese general population

OBJECTIVES

To elucidate which types of palliative sedation therapy are preferred by the Japanese general population, what factors influence these preferences, and how the general population thinks clinicians should inform patients about sedation therapy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey using a convenient sample of 457 Japanese people (effective response rate, 53.2%).

RESULTS

For refractory intractable physical distress, intermittent deep sedation was chosen as "probably want" or "strongly want" by 86% of the respondents, and mild sedation was chosen by 82%. For refractory intractable psychological distress, intermittent deep sedation was chosen as "probably want" or "strongly want" by 76%, and mild sedation was chosen by 68%. Continuous deep sedation was chosen as "absolutely not want" or "probably not want" by 72% for physical distress and 71% for psychological distress. The respondents who did not want continuous deep sedation were significantly younger, more educated, and more likely to perceive the importance of dignity and preparation for death. Eighty-five percent wanted clear information about reduction in consciousness, and 92% were positive with "in advance" information about sedation therapy. When family members did not agree with the patient's decision, 71% stated that physicians should follow the patient's wishes.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese general population preferred intermittent deep or mild sedation to continuous deep sedation in alleviation of intractable and refractory distress. Many required explicit information about the serious consequences of sedation and wanted physicians to respect their wishes. We recommend that clinicians recognize the importance of both symptom alleviation and maintenance of intellectual activities, and to facilitate direct patient involvement in the decision-making process.

Delirium in patients with advanced cancer

Managing delirium is of major importance in end-of-life care and frequently gives rise to controversies and to clinical and ethical dilemmas. These problems arise from a number of causes, including the sometimes-poor recognition or misdiagnosis of delirium despite its frequent occurrence. Delirium generates major symptomatic of distress for the patient, consequent stress for the patient's family, the potential to misinterpret delirium symptomatology, and behavioral management challenges for health care professionals. Paradoxically, delirium is potentially reversible in some episodes, but in many patients delirium presents a nonreversible terminal episode. Greater educational efforts are required to improve the recognition of delirium and lead to a better understanding of its impact in end-of-life care. Future research might focus on phenomenology, the development of low-burden instruments for assessment, communication strategies, and the family education regarding the manifestations of delirium. Further research is needed among patients with advanced cancer to establish a predictive model for reversibility that recognizes both baseline vulnerability factors and superimposed precipitating factors. Evidence-based guidelines should be developed to assist physicians in more appropriate use of sedation in the symptomatic management of delirium.

Practical guide to palliative sedation

Terminally ill patients want assurance that their symptoms will be controlled as death approaches. Most patients can have a peaceful death with standard palliative care. Some patients approaching death, however, have refractory symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, nausea, and agitated delirium. Palliative sedation (PS), the use of medications to induce sedation in order to control refractory symptoms near death, is a therapeutic option for these patients. The reported frequency of PS use varies greatly, ranging from 5% to 52% of the terminally ill. One concern with PS is its effect on survival. Data suggest that PS does not lead to immediate death, with the median time to death after initiating PS being greater than 1 to 5 days. A number of medications have been used for PS, but midazolam is most commonly reported. PS is distinct from euthanasia because the intent of PS is relief from suffering without death as a required outcome.

Palliative sedation therapy: a review of definitions and usage

Palliative care clinicians are faced with the challenge of managing a multitude of complex symptom combinations in patients for whom they care. Although many symptoms respond favourably to established protocols, others may remain refractory to such intervention. It is within the context of trying to manage such symptoms that the issue of palliative sedation therapy arises. The use of sedation in such circumstances is one that has prompted considerable debate in the palliative care literature. Discourse has been hampered, however, by a lack of consensus regarding the meaning and intent of palliative sedation therapy, when it should be used clinically and how it is to be achieved pharmacologically. There is a dearth of research examining the meanings ascribed to its use from the perspective of patients, families, and health-care providers. This article will provide an overview of these identified issues, and provide suggestions for ways in which palliative sedation therapy might further be examined and understood.

Does receipt of hospice care in nursing homes improve the management of pain at the end of life?

OBJECTIVES

To compare analgesic management of daily pain for dying nursing home residents enrolled and not enrolled in Medicare hospice.

DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative cohort study.

SETTING

Over 800 nursing homes in Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New York, and South Dakota.

PARTICIPANTS

A subset of residents with daily pain near the end of life taken from a matched cohort of hospice (2,644) and nonhospice (7,929) nursing home residents who had at least two resident assessments (Minimum Data Sets (MDSs)) completed, their last between 1992 and 1996, and who died before April 1997. The daily pain subset consisted of 709 hospice and 1,326 nonhospice residents.

MEASUREMENTS

Detailed drug use data contained on the last MDS before death were used to examine analgesic management of daily pain. Guidelines from the American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) were used to identify analgesics not recommended for use in managing chronic pain in long-term care settings. The study outcome, regular treatment of daily pain, examined whether patients received any analgesic, other than those not recommended by AMDA, at least twice a day for each day of documented daily pain (i.e., 7 days before date of last MDS).

RESULTS

Fifteen percent of hospice residents and 23% of nonhospice residents in daily pain received no analgesics (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45-0.74). A lower proportion of hospice residents (21%) than of nonhospice residents (29%) received analgesics not recommended by AMDA (OR = 0.65, 95% CI =0.52-0.80). Overall, acetaminophen (not in combination with other drugs) was used most frequently for nonhospice residents (25% of 1,673 prescriptions), whereas morphine derivatives were used most frequently for hospice residents (30% of 1,058 prescriptions). Fifty-one percent of hospice residents and 33% of nonhospice residents received regular treatment for daily pain. Controlling for clinical confounders, hospice residents were twice as likely as nonhospice residents to receive regular treatment for daily pain (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.68-2.56).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that analgesic management of daily pain is better for nursing home residents enrolled in hospice than for those not enrolled in hospice.The prescribing practices portrayed by this study reveal that many dying nursing home residents in daily pain are receiving no analgesic treatment or are receiving analgesic treatment inconsistent with AMDA and other pain management guidelines. Improving the analgesic management of pain in nursing homes is essential if high-quality end-of-life care in nursing homes is to be achieved.

When midazolam fails

Significant distress is experienced by patients, families, and caregivers when a symptom or disorder, such as an agitated delirium, becomes an intractable, or a catastrophic event, such as irreversible stridor. When palliative sedation is indicated for these patients, midazolam is usually the preferred drug. In some cases, however, midazolam fails to provide adequate sedation. Two cases are presented to illustrate this phenomenon and explore the possible mechanisms underlying this lack of response. These mechanisms appear to be multifaceted. The heterogeneity of the GABA(A) receptor complex and the alterations that this complex can undergo functionally can explain, to some degree, the diversity of the physiological and pharmacological outcomes. Other factors responsible for the diversity in response may include concomitant medications, age, concurrent disease, overall health status, alcohol use, liver disease, renal disease, smoking and hormonal status. Evidence-based guidelines on alternative treatment options should midazolam fail are required. In the interim, a lower threshold for adding an alternative drug, such as phenobarbital, or substituting midazolam with another drug, such as propofol, should be considered in these circumstances.

Practices and attitudes of Japanese oncologists and palliative care physicians concerning terminal sedation: a nationwide survey

PURPOSE

To clarify the frequency of practice of sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients and to identify physicians' attitudes toward sedation.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to 1,436 Japanese oncologists and palliative care physicians with a request to report their practice of and attitudes toward palliative sedation therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 697 physicians returned questionnaires (response rate, 49.6%). Use of mild, intermittent-deep, or continuous-deep sedation for physical and psychologic distress was reported by 89% and 64%, 70% and 46%, and 66% and 38%, respectively. In vignettes in which physicians were asked whether they would use sedation for a patient with refractory dyspnea or with existential distress, 14% and 15%, respectively, chose continuous-deep sedation as a strong possibility. Those physicians less confident with psychologic care and with higher levels of professional burnout were more likely to choose continuous-deep sedation. In vignettes in which they were asked whether they use sedation for a patient with depression or delirium, 39% and 31%, respectively, considered psychiatric treatment to be a strong possibility, and 42% and 50% regarded continuous-deep sedation as a potential treatment option. Physicians less involved in caring for the terminally ill and less specialized in palliative medicine were significantly less likely to choose psychiatric treatment.

CONCLUSION

Sedation is frequently used for severe physical and psychologic distress of cancer patients. Physicians' clinical experiences with the terminally ill and their levels of professional burnout influence the decisions. Training and education for physicians in regard to end-of-life care and valid clinical guidelines for palliative sedation therapy are necessary.