Prospective observational Italian study on palliative sedation in two hospice settings: differences in casemixes and clinical care

Palliative sedation determinants: systematic review and meta-analysis in palliative medicine

BACKGROUND

The utilisation of palliative sedation is often favoured by patients approaching end of life due to the presence of multiple difficult-to-manage symptoms during the terminal stage. This study aimed to identify the determinants of the use of palliative sedation.

METHODS

To identify pertinent observational studies, a comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases from their inception until March 2022. The methodological quality of the chosen prospective and retrospective cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, while the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the selected cross-sectional studies. For each potential determinant of interest, the collected data were synthesised and analysed, and in cases where data could not be combined, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were analysed in this research, consisting of 4 prospective cohort studies, 7 retrospective cohort studies, and 10 cross-sectional studies. The findings indicated that several determinants were significantly associated with palliative sedation. These determinants included younger age, male gender, presence of tumours, dyspnoea, pain, delirium, making advanced medical end-of-life decisions, and dying in a hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our review could help physicians identify patients who may need palliative sedation in advance and implement targeted interventions to reverse refractory symptoms, develop personalized palliative sedation programs, and ultimately improve the quality of palliative care services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022324720.

Characterization in end-of-life care of older people attended by geriatricians

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Symptom control at the end of life is essential, and palliative sedation is a viable intervention option for the care of terminally ill patients. This study aims to characterize the elderly population receiving end-of-life care plans and their management with palliative sedation in a geriatric unit at a high complexity hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Medical records of 163 patients admitted to a high complexity hospital in Bogota, Colombia between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed.

RESULTS

From 163, 141 patients received an end-of-life care plan, and 22 were managed with palliative sedation. The mean age was 84 years, the most frequent cause of death was respiratory infections and 44% of patients had a history of cancer. Prior to admission, functional decline and the presence of moderate to severe dementia were frequently found. About one in ten persons required palliative sedation, which lasted an average of 2.22±5 days. The most common refractory symptom was dyspnea (45.45%), followed by pain (36.36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative sedation is prevalent in the elderly population and characterizing this population can provide increased knowledge to improve end-of-life care.

Expert-approved best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care (SedPall)

BACKGROUND

The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue's great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall ("From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation - Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care") with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area.

DESIGN

Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%.

RESULTS

Ten experts commented on the recommendations' first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics "indications", "intent/purpose [of sedation]", "decision-making", "information and consent", "medication and type of sedation", "monitoring", "management of fluids and nutrition", "continuing other measures", "support for relatives", and "team support". The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues.

CONCLUSION

Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations' implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Sedation in specialized palliative care: A cross-sectional study

Background

Palliative sedation is used to relieve refractory symptoms and is part of clinical practice in Sweden. Yet we do not know how frequently this practice occurs, how decision-making takes place, or even which medications are preferentially used.

Objectives

To understand the current practice of palliative sedation in Sweden.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional medical record-based study. For 690 consecutive deceased patients from 11 of 12 specialized palliative care units in the southernmost region of Sweden who underwent palliative sedation during 2016, we collected data on whether the patient died during sedation and, for sedated patients, the decision-making process, medication used, and depth of sedation.

Results

Eight percent of patients were sedated. Almost all (94%) were given midazolam, sometimes in combination with propofol. The proportions of sedation were similar in the patient groups with and without cancer. The largest proportion of the sedated patients died in inpatient care, but 23% died at home, with specialized palliative home care. Among the patients with a decision to sedate, 42% died deeply unconscious, while for those without such a decision the corresponding figure was 16%. In only one case was there more than one physician involved in the decision to use palliative sedation.

Conclusion

8% of patients in specialized palliative care received palliative sedation, which is lower than international measures but much increased compared to an earlier Swedish assessment. The level of consciousness achieved often did not correspond to the planned level; this, together with indications of a scattered decision process, shows a need for clear guidelines.

Association of the RASS Score with Intensity of Symptoms, Discomfort, and Communication Capacity in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Receiving Palliative Sedation: Is RASS an Appropriate Outcome Measure?

Background:

Palliative sedation is sometimes needed for refractory symptoms, and the Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale (RASS) is one of the key measures. The primary aim of this study was to explore the association between RASS and degree of distress quantified by other measures: Item “symptom control” of Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS, item 2), Discomfort Scale for Dementia of Alzheimer Type (Discomfort Scale), and Noncommunicative Patient's Pain Assessment Instrument (NOPPAIN), as well as a communication capacity measured by the Communication Capacity Scale (CCS), item 4.

Methods:

This was a prospective observational study on terminally ill cancer patients with palliative sedation in a palliative care unit of a designated cancer hospital. Primarily responsible palliative care physicians rated RASS, Discomfort Scale, NOPPAIN, and CCS just before sedation and 1, 4, 24, and 48 hours after, and ward nurses rated STAS at the same time. Since the ward nurses evaluated STAS during palliative sedation, we regarded STAS as a standard of distress measure.

Results:

A total of 249 assessments were performed for 55 patients. RASS was moderately to highly associated with symptom intensity measured by STAS, discomfort measured by the Discomfort Scale, and pain measured by NOPPAIN (r = 0.63 to 0.73). But communication capacity measured by CCS is not parallel with RASS and demonstrated a valley shape. In 82 assessments with an RASS score of −1 to −3, 11 patients (13%) had physical symptoms of STAS of 2 or more.

Conclusions:

RASS can roughly estimate physical distress in patients with palliative sedation, but a measure to more precisely quantify the symptom experience is needed.

Clinical Aspects of Palliative Sedation in Prospective Studies. A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed.

RESULTS

Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.

How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed.

AIM

To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured.

DESIGN

Integrative review of most recent empirical research.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010-2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness.

RESULTS

Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.

Midazolam sedation in palliative medicine: retrospective study in a French center for cancer control

BACKGROUND

French legislation about sedation in palliative medicine evolved in 2016 with the introduction of a right to deep and continuous sedation, maintained until death. The objective was to describe midazolam sedation at the COL (Centre Oscar Lambret [Oscar Lambret Center], French regional center for cancer control), in order to establish a current overview before the final legislative changes.

METHODS

Descriptive, retrospective and single-center study, concerning major patients in palliative care hospitalized from 01/01/2014 to 12/31/2015, who had been sedated by midazolam. The proven sedations (explicitly named) and the probable sedations were distinguished.

RESULTS

A total of 54 sedations were identified (48 proven, 6 probable). Refractory symptoms accounted for 48.1% of indications, complications with immediate risk of death 46.3%, existential suffering 5.6%. Titration was performed in 44.4% of cases. Sedation was continuous until death for 98.1% of the cases. Probable sedation had a higher failure rate than proven sedation. Significant differences existed for the palliative care unit compared to other units regarding information to the patient, their consent, anticipation, mention by correspondence and carrying out titrations. When patients had already been treated with midazolam, the induction doses, initial maintenance doses, and doses at the time of death were significantly higher. For those receiving opioids, the maintenance dose at the time of death was higher. No comparison found a difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

After a sufficient follow-up has enabled teams to familiarize with this new legislation, reflection on sedation should be conducted to adapt to final recommendations.

Palliative sedation: beliefs and decision-making among Spanish palliative care physicians

PURPOSE

To describe physician attitudes to deep palliative sedation.

METHODS

A nationwide e-survey of Spanish palliative care specialists was performed using vignettes which described patients close to death with intractable symptoms. Sedation levels were defined according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess the explanatory factors involved in decision-making.

RESULTS

Responses of 292 palliative care specialists were analyzed (response rate 40%). Ninety-four percent, 87%, and 81% of the respondents supported the use of palliative sedation in cases of irreversible refractory symptoms as hyperactive delirium and dyspnea at rest secondary to lung cancer and GOLD stage IV COPD; 60% agreed with the use of palliative sedation in cases of existential suffering. Logistic regression analysis found as the explanatory factor in not performing palliative sedation the physicians' belief that sedation therapy constitutes undercover euthanasia (OR = 12, p < 0.01). Around 80% of physicians who decided on palliative sedation chose deep/complete sedation for every vignette; there were no common explanatory factors for decision-making for every vignette. The belief that sedation therapy equates to undercover euthanasia justifies not performing deep sedation in cases of irreversible refractory agitated delirium (OR = 7) and irreversible intractable dyspnea (OR = 6). Physician background in palliative care and sedation were associated with the selection of deep/complete sedation in cases of refractory delirium and cancer-associated dyspnea.

CONCLUSIONS

Spanish palliative physicians generally agree with the use of deep sedation as a proportionate treatment in dying patients with refractory symptoms. Decision-making is associated with physician beliefs regarding euthanasia and with the physician's background in palliative care and sedation.

Identification and evaluation of observational measures for the assessment and/or monitoring of level of consciousness in adult palliative care patients: A systematic review for I-CAN-CARE

BACKGROUND

The use of observational measures to assess palliative care patients' level of consciousness may improve patient care and comfort. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the validity and reliability of these measures in palliative care settings.

AIM

To identify and evaluate the psychometric performance of observational level of consciousness measures used in palliative care.

DESIGN

Systematic review; PROSPERO registration: CRD42017073080.

DATA SOURCES

We searched six databases until November 2018, using search terms combining subject headings and free-text terms. Psychometric performance for each identified tool was appraised independently by two reviewers following established criteria for developing and evaluating health outcome measures.

RESULTS

We found 35 different levels of consciousness tools used in 65 studies. Only seven studies reported information about psychometric performance of just eight tools. All other studies used either ad hoc measures for which no formal validation had been undertaken (n = 21) or established tools mainly developed and validated in non-palliative care settings (n = 37). The Consciousness Scale for Palliative Care and a modified version of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale received the highest ratings in our appraisal, but, since psychometric evidence was limited, no tool could be assessed for all psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of studies in palliative care are using observational measures of level of consciousness. However, only a few of these tools have been tested for their psychometric performance in that context. Future research in this area should validate and/or refine the existing measures, rather than developing new tools.

The Association Between Benzodiazepines and Survival in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Patients with cancer often experience distressing symptoms such as anxiety or dyspnea, which can be managed with benzodiazepines; however, concerns regarding the impact of these drugs on survival may dissuade prescribing and compliance.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify and appraise studies examining benzodiazepine use and survival in adults with cancer, to investigate the relationship and context of use.

METHODS

Systematic review of the international literature prepared according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. Comprehensive searches of the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and AMED databases using medical subject heading and free-text search combinations with no date or language restrictions were undertook. Handsearching of references was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred fifty-seven unique records were identified, with 18 meeting inclusion criteria, representing 4117 patients. All studies were very low quality. No study found an increase in mortality in association with benzodiazepine use, whereas two demonstrated an increase.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence shows no association between benzodiazepine use in patients with cancer and decreased survival. None of the studies evaluated the association between benzodiazepine use and survival in earlier stages of cancer, and the quality of studies retrieved signifies a need for further robust studies to draw more definitive conclusions. Further investigation in patients with cancer using well-designed, high-quality research with survival as a primary outcome should be conducted.

Continuous Deep Sedation and Euthanasia in Pediatrics: Does One Really Exclude the Other for Terminally Ill Patients?

Debates on morally acceptable and lawful end-of-life (EOL) practices in pediatrics were reignited by the recent amendment in Belgian law to allow euthanasia for minors of any age who meet the criteria for capacity. Euthanasia and its legalization in pediatrics are often opposed based on the availability of aggressive palliative sedation. For terminally ill patients, this type of sedation is often identified as continuous and deep sedation until death (CDS). We demonstrate that this reasoning is based on flawed assumptions: (1) CDS is a morally preferable alternative to euthanasia; (2) CDS can meet the same patient needs as euthanasia; (3) children lack the capacity and experience to make EOL decisions; (4) unlike euthanasia, CDS does not raise capacity issues. Our aim is not to reject CDS as a valid option at the EOL, nor to offer a clear-cut defense of euthanasia for minors, but to emphasize the ethical issues with both practices.

Palliative Sedation for the Terminally Ill Patient

Palliative sedation (PS) is performed in the terminally ill patient to manage one or more refractory symptoms. Proportional PS, which means that drugs can be titrated to the minimum effective dose, is the form most widely used. From a quarter to a third of all terminally ill patients undergo PS, with a quarter of these requiring continuous deep sedation. The prevalence of PS varies according to the care setting and case mix. The most frequent refractory physical symptoms are delirium and dyspnea, but PS is also considered for existential suffering or psychological distress, which is an extremely difficult and delicate issue to deal with. Active consensus from the patient and advanced care planning is recommended for PS. The decision-making process concerning the continuation or withdrawal of other treatments is not the same as that used for PS. The practice differs totally from euthanasia in its intentions, procedures, and results. The most widely used drugs are midazolam and haloperidol for refractory delirium, but chlorpromazine and other neuroleptics are also effective. In conclusion, some patients experience refractory symptoms during the last hours or days of life and PS is a medical intervention aimed at managing this unbearable suffering. It does not have a detrimental effect on survival.

Palliative Sedation in Terminal Cancer Patients Admitted to Hospice or Home Care Programs: Does the Setting Matter? Results From a National Multicenter Observational Study

CONTEXT

Few studies regarding palliative sedation (PS) have been carried out in home care (HC) setting. A comparison of PS rate and practices between hospice (HS) and HC is also lacking.

OBJECTIVES

Comparing HC and HS settings for PS rate, patient clinical characteristics before and during PS, decision-making process, and clinical aspects of PS.

METHODS

About 38 HC/HS services in Italy participated in a multicenter observational longitudinal study. Consecutive adult cancer patients followed till death during a four-month period and undergoing PS were eligible. Symptom control and level of consciousness were registered every eight hours to death.

RESULTS

About 4276 patients were screened, 2894 followed till death, and 531 (18%) underwent PS. PS rate was 15% in HC and 21% in HS (P < 0.001). Principal refractory symptoms were delirium (54%) and dyspnea (45%), respectively, more common in HC (P < 0.001) and HS (P = 0.03). Informed consent was not obtained in 72% of patients but achieved by 96% of families. Midazolam was the most used drug (94% HS vs. 75% HC; P < 0.001) mainly by continuous infusion (74% HC vs. 89% HS; P < 0.001). PS duration was less than 48 hours in 67% of patients. Hydration during PS was less frequent in HC (27% vs. 49%; P < 0.001). In the eight hours before death, consciousness level was unrousable to mild physical stimulation in 81% and symptom control complete in 89% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Our results show feasibility of PS in HC and HS and suggest setting differences in rates, indications, and practice of PS, possibly related to patients' selection or care organization.

[Palliative sedation : Development and consensus of a German language documentation template]

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation (PS) serves as a therapeutic option in cases of otherwise intractable suffering. As the use of sedative and hypnotic medication in many diverse situations is a core competency of anesthesiology, anesthesiologists are confronted with questions of sedative therapy at the end of life in institutions for specialized palliative care, in intensive care units and intermediate care wards. In recent years a number of guidelines have been published internationally but so far no official guidelines exist in Germany. The most recognized document is the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework on PS. This project aims to develop a German language template for the preparation, application, documentation and evaluation of PS according to the current frameworks, especially the EAPC framework on PS.

METHODS

A first draft of the template was generated by the project team using the EAPC framework and individual templates of various institutions, which had been collected during a previous project. Professionals (n = 136) from inpatient and outpatient specialist palliative and hospice care were invited to assess all items of the draft regarding "relevance", "wording" and "feasibility" in an online Delphi survey (Unipark®, Questback, Cologne, Germany). After the second Delphi round an expert panel was asked to reflect the results and generate a final draft. Approval was granted if acceptance exceeded 75% of participants.

RESULTS

The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 64, 46 and 41 participants, respectively. The Delphi process as well as the expert panel led to significant changes of the template. The indications for PS had to be clarified. The significance of documentation of vital parameters, such as oxygen saturation, blood pressure or respiratory rate during PS was intensively discussed. In many teams, predominantly hospice or outpatient palliative care teams, it seems to be difficult to measure these parameters or it is regarded as inappropriate in a palliative care setting. In contrast, the EAPC framework recommends monitoring of vital parameters in cases of intermittent or respite sedation. Finally, a solution was found to support documentation of additional data without the explicit mentioning of specific parameters. After the third Delphi round, all 16 items of the documentation template reached consensus with respect to relevance (82.9-100%), clarity of wording (80.5-100%), and feasibility in practice (78-100%).

CONCLUSION

This article provides an empirically based, multiprofessional consented documentation template for PS. Core elements of the documentation of PS are the indications and the decision process towards PS. During the treatment, at least the level of sedation and the symptom burden have to be recorded. The documentation of vital signs during PS remains a highly disputed topic. The presented data suggest that especially in outpatient settings and in hospices measuring and documentation of vital parameters is uncommon and therefore is often regarded as not feasible. This template can help to support the medically and ethically sound use of PS and facilitate research. The template can be accessed at http://www.palliativmedizin.uk-erlangen.de/forschung/downloads/ .

The Practice of Continuous Palliative Sedation in Long-Term Care for Frail Patients with Existential Suffering

Some guidelines and recommendations identify existential suffering as a potential refractory symptom for which continuous palliative sedation (CPS) can be administered under certain conditions. However, there has been little research on the characteristics of patients with existential suffering treated with CPS and the degree to which the preconditions are fulfilled. The aim of this study was to provide insight into this specific indication for CPS. Questionnaires were sent to nursing home physicians in the Netherlands, who described 314 patients. Existential suffering was a refractory symptom in 83 of the patients. For most of the patients with refractory existential suffering, other refractory symptoms were also reported, and life expectancy was seven days or less; informed consent for initiating CPS had been obtained in all cases. Consultation and intermittent sedation before the start of CPS were far less frequently reported than one would expect based on the guidelines. Multivariate analysis showed that being male, having previously requested euthanasia, having a nervous system disease, or having an other diagnosis were positively correlated with the administration of CPS for existential suffering. We conclude that more attention should be paid to the suggested preconditions and to the presence of existential suffering in male patients or patients with a nervous system disease.

Continuous Deep Sedation: A Proposal for Performing More Rigorous Empirical Research

Continuous deep sedation until death (CDS) is a type of palliative sedation therapy, and it has recently become a focus of intense debate. Marked inconsistencies in intervention procedures (i.e., what is CDS?) and unstandardized descriptions of patient backgrounds lead to difficulty in comparing the results in the literature. The primary aim of this article was to propose a conceptual framework to perform empirical studies on CDS. We propose the definition of CDS using the intervention protocol. As there are two types of CDS proposed in world-wide literature, we recommend to prepare two types of intervention protocol for CDS: "continuous deep sedation as a result of proportional sedation" (gradual CDS) and "continuous deep sedation to rapidly induce unconsciousness" (rapid CDS). In addition, we recommend that researchers characterize study patients' general condition using a validated prognostic tool, Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model-A. Using this conceptual framework, we can compare the outcomes following the same exposures among homogenous patients throughout the world. This article proposes a provisional definition of two types of CDS. Defining CDS using the intervention protocol and describing patient backgrounds using validated prognostic tools enable comparisons and interpretations of empirical research about CDS. More empirical studies are urgently needed.

Palliative Sedation and What Constitutes Active Dying

We present the case of a 34-year-old woman with Klippel-Feil syndrome who developed progressive generalized dystonia of unclear etiology, resulting in intractable pain despite aggressive medical and surgical interventions. Ultimately, palliative sedation was required to relieve suffering. Herein, we describe ethical considerations including defining sedation, determining prognosis in the setting of an undefined neurodegenerative condition, and use of treatments that concurrently might prolong or alter end-of-life trajectory. We highlight pertinent literature and how it may be applied in challenging and unique clinical situations. Finally, we discuss the need for expert multidisciplinary involvement when implementing palliative sedation and illustrate that procedures and rules need to be interpreted to deliver optimal patient-centered plan of care.

Contesting the Equivalency of Continuous Sedation until Death and Physician-assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Commentary on LiPuma

Patients who are imminently dying sometimes experience symptoms refractory to traditional palliative interventions, and in rare cases, continuous sedation is offered. Samuel H. LiPuma, in a recent article in this Journal, argues that continuous sedation until death is equivalent to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia based on a higher brain neocortical definition of death. We contest his position that continuous sedation involves killing and offer four objections to the equivalency thesis. First, sedation practices are proportional in a way that physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia is not. Second, continuous sedation may not entirely abolish consciousness. Third, LiPuma's particular version of higher brain neocortical death relies on an implausibly weak construal of irreversibility--a position that is especially problematic in the case of continuous sedation. Finally, we explain why continuous sedation until death is not functionally equivalent to neocortical death and, hence, physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia. Concluding remarks review the differences between these two end-of-life practices.

Palliative pharmacological sedation for terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Terminally ill people experience a variety of symptoms in the last hours and days of life, including delirium, agitation, anxiety, terminal restlessness, dyspnoea, pain, vomiting, and psychological and physical distress. In the terminal phase of life, these symptoms may become refractory, and unable to be controlled by supportive and palliative therapies specifically targeted to these symptoms. Palliative sedation therapy is one potential solution to providing relief from these refractory symptoms. Sedation in terminally ill people is intended to provide relief from refractory symptoms that are not controlled by other methods. Sedative drugs such as benzodiazepines are titrated to achieve the desired level of sedation; the level of sedation can be easily maintained and the effect is reversible.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the benefit of palliative pharmacological sedation on quality of life, survival, and specific refractory symptoms in terminally ill adults during their last few days of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), and EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), using search terms representing the sedative drug names and classes, disease stage, and study designs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies (e.g. before-and-after, interrupted-time-series) with quantitative outcomes. We excluded studies with only qualitative outcomes or that had no comparison (i.e. no control group or no within-group comparison) (e.g. single arm case series).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of citations, and full text of potentially eligible studies. Two review authors independently carried out data extraction using standard data extraction forms. A third review author acted as arbiter for both stages. We carried out no meta-analyses due to insufficient data for pooling on any outcome; therefore, we reported outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches resulted in 14 included studies, involving 4167 adults, of whom 1137 received palliative sedation. More than 95% of people had cancer. No studies were randomised or quasi-randomised. All were consecutive case series, with only three having prospective data collection. Risk of bias was high, due to lack of randomisation. No studies measured quality of life or participant well-being, which was the primary outcome of the review. Five studies measured symptom control, using four different methods, so pooling was not possible. The results demonstrated that despite sedation, delirium and dyspnoea were still troublesome symptoms in these people in the last few days of life. Control of other symptoms appeared to be similar in sedated and non-sedated people. Only one study measured unintended adverse effects of sedative drugs and found no major events; however, four of 70 participants appeared to have drug-induced delirium. The study noticed no respiratory suppression. Thirteen of the 14 studies measured survival time from admission or referral to death, and all demonstrated no statistically significant difference between sedated and non-sedated groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence about the efficacy of palliative sedation in terms of a person's quality of life or symptom control. There was evidence that palliative sedation did not hasten death, which has been a concern of physicians and families in prescribing this treatment. However, this evidence comes from low quality studies, so should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that specifically measure the efficacy and quality of life in sedated people, compared with non-sedated people, and quantify adverse effects are required.

Care provided and care setting transitions in the last three months of life of cancer patients: a nationwide monitoring study in four European countries

BACKGROUND

This is an international study across four European countries (Belgium[BE], the Netherlands[NL], Italy[IT] and Spain[ES]) between 2009 and 2011, describing and comparing care and care setting transitions provided in the last three months of life of cancer patients, using representative GP networks.

METHODS

General practitioners (GPs) of representative networks in each country reported weekly all non-sudden cancer deaths (+18y) within their practice. GPs reported medical end-of-life care, communication and circumstances of dying on a standardised questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regressions (BE as a reference category) were conducted to compare countries.

RESULTS

Of 2,037 identified patients from four countries, four out of five lived at home or with family in their last year of life. Over 50% of patients had at least one transition in care settings in the last three months of life; one third of patients in BE, IT and ES had a last week hospital admission and died there. In the last week of life, a treatment goal was adopted for 80-95% of those having palliation/comfort as their treatment goal. Cross-country differences in end-of-life care provision included GPs in NL being more involved in palliative care (67%) than in other countries (35%-49%) (OR 1.9) and end-of-life topics less often discussed in IT or ES. Preference for place of death was less often expressed in IT and ES (32-34%) than in BE and NL (49-74%). Of all patients, 88-98% were estimated to have distress from at least one physical symptom in the final week of life.

CONCLUSION

Although palliative care was the main treatment goal for most cancer patients at the end of life in all four countries, frequent late hospital admissions and the symptom burden experienced in the last week of life indicates that further integration of palliative care into oncology care is required in many countries.

End-of-life delirium: issues regarding recognition, optimal management, and the role of sedation in the dying phase

CONTEXT

In end-of-life care, delirium is often not recognized and poses unique management challenges, especially in the case of refractory delirium in the terminal phase.

OBJECTIVES

To review delirium in the terminal phase context, specifically in relation to recognition issues; the decision-making processes and management strategies regarding its reversibility; the potential refractoriness of delirium to symptomatic treatment; and the role of sedation in refractory delirium.

METHODS

We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant electronic database literature searches (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) to inform this narrative review.

RESULTS

The overall management strategy for delirium at the end of life is directed by the patient's prognosis in association with the patient's goals of care. As symptoms of delirium are often refractory in the terminal phase, especially in the case of agitated delirium, the judicious use of palliative sedation is frequently required. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence for the management of delirium in the terminal phase, including the role of antipsychotics and optimal sedation strategies. For the family and health-care staff, clear communication, education, and emotional support are vital components to assist with decision making and direct the treatment care plan.

CONCLUSION

Further research on the effectiveness of delirium management strategies in the terminal phase for patients and their families is required. Further validation of assessment tools for diagnostic screening and severity measurement is needed in this patient population.

The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients (RASS-PAL): a pilot study exploring validity and feasibility in clinical practice

Background

The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), which assesses level of sedation and agitation, is a simple observational instrument which was developed and validated for the intensive care setting. Although used and recommended in palliative care settings, further validation is required in this patient population. The aim of this study was to explore the validity and feasibility of a version of the RASS modified for palliative care populations (RASS-PAL).

Methods

A prospective study, using a mixed methods approach, was conducted. Thirteen health care professionals (physicians and nurses) working in an acute palliative care unit assessed ten consecutive patients with an agitated delirium or receiving palliative sedation. Patients were assessed at five designated time points using the RASS-PAL. Health care professionals completed a short survey and data from semi-structured interviews was analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

The inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient range of the RASS-PAL was 0.84 to 0.98 for the five time points. Professionals agreed that the tool was useful for assessing sedation and was easy to use. Its role in monitoring delirium however was deemed problematic. Professionals felt that it may assist interprofessional communication. The need for formal education on why and how to use the instrument was highlighted.

Conclusion

This study provides preliminary validity evidence for the use of the RASS-PAL by physicians and nurses working in a palliative care unit, specifically for assessing sedation and agitation levels in the management of palliative sedation. Further validity evidence should be sought, particularly in the context of assessing delirium.

Palliative sedation in end-of-life care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review was to present and comment on recent data published on palliative sedation in palliative and end-of-life care. Palliative sedation is a medical procedure used to deal with the refractory symptoms occurring in the advanced stages of cancer. It has clinical, nursing, relational and ethical implications, making it a highly sensitive issue.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 12 months, a number of authors have published interesting new findings on different areas of palliative sedation, that is prevalence, indications, monitoring, duration and choice of drugs. In particular, a clear definition of palliative sedation and of its more pronounced form, deep continuous sedation (DCS), has emerged. It has been confirmed that, when performed in the correct way and with the right aims, palliative sedation does not have a detrimental impact on survival.

SUMMARY

Recent findings confirm that palliative sedation is an integral part of a medical palliative care approach and is needed in certain clinical situations. It is a legitimate clinical practice from any ethical point of view. While oncologists should have a basic knowledge of the procedure, its in depth study is a core competency for palliative care physicians.