Bispectral Index monitoring in cancer patients undergoing palliative sedation: a preliminary report

Acceptability of bispectral Index monitoring in end-of-life care for dementia

BACKGROUND

Assessing consciousness might benefit the care for people with Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia at the end of life by indicating distressing symptoms and moments of awareness. This could guide symptom control and increase interaction with the person with dementia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the acceptability of a biosignal measurement of consciousness, the Bispectral Index monitoring (BIS), for persons with dementia at the end of life.

METHODS

Qualitative study using focus groups and interviews with demonstrations of BIS monitoring, with 17 individuals with dementia and 24 family caregivers. Qualitative content analysis was based on the theoretical framework of acceptability.

RESULTS

People with dementia did not find BIS monitoring bothersome, yet acceptability varied across participants and situations. Family caregivers considered BIS acceptable for medical situations such as palliative sedation and pain assessment. Perceived effectiveness, ethicality, and usefulness considerations underpinned reasons and concerns around acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential end-users expressed diverse attitudes towards BIS monitoring in dementia end-of-life care. If BIS or similar technologies are to be implemented in the future, care must be taken to ensure that the device has sufficient added value, that the person with dementia and family are well informed, and that the technology does not replace human care. Future research should investigate its efficacy and feasibility in the situations that were deemed acceptable.

Successful Use of Propofol After Failed Palliative Sedation in Patients With Refractory Symptoms

Context: Propofol is a general anesthetic used in multiple clinical scenarios. Despite growing evidence supporting its use in palliative care, propofol is rarely used in palliative sedation. Reluctance toward the adoption of propofol as a sedative agent is often associated with fear of adverse events such as respiratory arrest. Objectives: We aimed to describe efficacy and safety of palliative sedation in refractory sedation with propofol using a protocol based on low, incremental dosing. Methods: A retrospective observational study featuring inpatients receiving sedative treatment with propofol in our palliative care unit in Madrid (Spain) between March 1, 2018 and February 28, 2023, following a newly developed protocol. Results: During the study period, 22 patients underwent sedation with propofol. Propofol was used successfully to control different refractory symptoms, mainly psychoexistential suffering and delirium. All patients had undergone previous failed attempts at sedation with other medications (midazolam or lemovepromazine) and presented risk factors for complicated sedation. All patients achieved satisfactory (profound) levels of sedation measured with the Ramsay Sedation Scale, but total doses varied greatly between patients. Most patients (17, 77%) received combined therapy with propofol and other sedative medications to harness synergies. The median time between start of sedation with propofol and death was 26.0 hours. No cases of apnea or death during induction were recorded. Conclusion: A protocol for palliative sedation with propofol based on low, incremental dosing, with the option of administering an initial induction bolus, shows excellent results regarding adequate levels of sedation, without observing apnea or respiratory depression. Our results promote the use of propofol to achieve palliative sedation in patients with refractory symptoms and risk factors for complicated sedation at the end of life.

Bispectral Index monitoring of palliative sedation for home withdrawal of tracheostomy ventilation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy ventilation in motor neurone disease is an uncommon life-sustaining treatment. Best practice is having a plan for ventilation withdrawal, but the literature to guide practice is limited. Case reports have documented standard doses of opioids and benzodiazepines used for sedation in such cases.

CASE

A 49-year-old man was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 2016. He commenced tracheostomy ventilation in 2018. In 2022 and 2023, planning was undertaken, at the patient's request, for withdrawal of tracheostomy ventilation at home, when he was no longer able to communicate with technology.

CASE PLANNING

Planning included Bispectral Index monitoring prior to cessation of ventilation, ensuring this only occurred when deep sedation was achieved. After ventilation withdrawal in 2023, a retrospective review of medications given and his level of sedation on monitoring was undertaken, with family consent.

OUTCOME

Ventilation withdrawal was initiated after deep sedation was achieved, 6 h after commencing subcutaneous infusions of morphine, midazolam, clonazepam and phenobarbital.

LESSONS

Doses required to achieve acceptable sedation exceeded literature reports. Achieving deep sedation was a longer than expected process.

CONCLUSION

More research using an objective measure of sedation is required, as clinical assessment of sedation in this context is compromised.

How should respiratory depression and loss of airway patency be handled during initiation of palliative sedation?

BACKGROUND

Loss of airway patency has been reported during initiation of palliative sedation. In present guidelines the loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation is not addressed. Airway patency can be restored by jaw thrust/chin lift or placing the patient in the recovery position.

AIM

A structured ethical analysis of how respiratory depression and loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation should be handled. The essence of the dilemma is whether it is appropriate to apply simple non-invasive methods to restore airway patency in order to avoid the patient's immediate death.

DESIGN

A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and stakeholders' interests.

RESULTS

Beneficence and autonomy support a decision not to regain airway patency whereas non-maleficence lends weight to a decision to restore airway patency. Whether the proportionality criterion of the principle of double effect is met depends on the features of the individual case. The ethical problem appears to be a genuine dilemma where important values and arguments point to different conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Whether to restore airway patency when the airway is obstructed during initiation of palliative sedation will ultimately be based on clinical judgment taking into account both any known patient preferences and relevant clinical information. There are strong arguments favoring both options in this clinical and ethical dilemma. The fact that a clear and universal recommendation cannot be made does not imply indifference regarding what is the clinically and ethically best option for each individual patient.

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

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

Survival Outcomes in Palliative Sedation Based on Referring Versus On-Call Physician Prescription

This study sought to determine the survival duration of patients who underwent palliative sedation, comparing those who received prescriptions from referring physicians versus on-call physicians. It included all patients over 18 years old who died in the Palliative Care, Internal Medicine, and Oncology units at the Hospital Universitario of Jerez de la Frontera between 1 January 2019, and 31 December 2019. Various factors were analyzed, including age, gender, oncological or non-oncological disease, type of primary tumor and refractory symptoms. Statistical analysis was employed to compare survival times between patients who received palliative sedation from referring physicians and those prescribed by on-call physicians, while accounting for other potential confounding variables. This study revealed that the median survival time after the initiation of palliative sedation was 25 h, with an interquartile range of 8 to 48 h. Notably, if the sedation was prescribed by referring physicians, the median survival time was 30 h, while it decreased to 17 h when prescribed by on-call physicians (RR 0.357; 95% CI 0.146-0.873; p = 0.024). Furthermore, dyspnea as a refractory symptom was associated with a shorter survival time (RR 0.307; 95% CI 0.095-0.985; p = 0.047). The findings suggest that the on-call physician often administered palliative sedation to rapidly deteriorating patients, particularly those experiencing dyspnea, which likely contributed to the shorter survival time following sedation initiation. This study underscores the importance of careful patient selection and prompt initiation of palliative sedation to alleviate suffering.

Palliative Sedation at Home: A Scoping Review

Palliative Sedation (PS) is an effective measure for the relief of refractory symptoms in end-of-life patients. This intervention can be performed at home, respecting the patients' and their families' decisions. A scoping review was performed to map the available evidence in the literature on the performance of PS at home. This review included 23 studies. Most were conducted in European countries with adult cancer patients. Patients, family members and healthcare providers participated in the decision making regarding the use of PS at home. PS was used primarily to manage refractory symptoms (pain, delirium, dyspnea, and others), and in 1 of the studies PS was mentioned as a possible intervention for shortening life. The most commonly used medication was midazolam and the average duration ranged from 4 h to 7 days. There are few reports on adverse events related to PS. This intervention seems to be a feasible possibility for the management of refractory symptoms in patients at the end of life, despite the fact that it can represent specific challenges for healthcare providers, patients and families. However, the literature is limited regarding PS in children and in people with diseases other than cancer, as well as on the evaluation of possible adverse effects related to this intervention. Furthermore, it is essential to have a broad ethical, clinical and legal debate on whether to consider the use of PS for the purpose of shortening life in specific cases.

Palliative Sedation Therapy: A Case Report

Introduction

Despite repeated exposure to dying patients, critical care providers and nurses may not be familiar with palliative sedation. This case report describes a scenario in which palliative sedation therapy was considered for a patient dying in the intensive care unit.

Clinical Findings

A 72-year-old woman was transferred from an outside hospital for management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. After her transfer, she experienced cardiac arrest and was resuscitated.

Diagnosis

The patient was diagnosed with pneumonia related to COVID-19. Arterial blood gas values showed her ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen to be less than 200, consistent with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Interventions

The patient was intubated and started on a ventilator protocol for acute respiratory distress syndrome. After her cardiac arrest, she required a continuous epinephrine infusion.

Outcomes

The patient’s family was notified of the severity of her clinical status, and the critical care team began to plan the transition from aggressive to comfort care. A provider suggested that the patient should receive continuous intravenous propofol after extubation to manage dyspnea during the dying process.

Conclusion

Palliative sedation therapy may be needed for dying patients, such as those with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. The transition from curative to palliative measures often occurs in intensive care units but the ethical principles behind palliative sedation are not well understood by those providing care in these settings. It is vital that critical care nurses and providers be informed about available treatments for symptoms of dying patients, including palliative sedation.

Do palliative care patients and relatives think it would be acceptable to use Bispectral index (BIS) technology to monitor palliative care patients' levels of consciousness? A qualitative exploration with interviews and focus groups for the I-CAN-CARE research programme

BACKGROUND

Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring uses electroencephalographic data as an indicator of patients' consciousness level. This technology might be a useful adjunct to clinical observation when titrating sedative medications for palliative care patients. However, the use of BIS in palliative care generally, and in the UK in particular, is under-researched. A key area is this technology's acceptability for palliative care service users. Ahead of trialling BIS in practice, and in order to ascertain whether such a trial would be reasonable, we conducted a study to explore UK palliative care patients' and relatives' perceptions of the technology, including whether they thought its use in palliative care practice would be acceptable.

METHODS

A qualitative exploration was undertaken. Participants were recruited through a UK hospice. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with separate groups of palliative care patients, relatives of current patients, and bereaved relatives. We explored their views on acceptability of using BIS with palliative care patients, and analysed their responses following the five key stages of the Framework method.

RESULTS

We recruited 25 participants. There were ten current hospice patients in three focus groups, four relatives of current patients in one focus group and one individual interview, and eleven bereaved relatives in three focus groups and two individual interviews. Our study participants considered BIS acceptable for monitoring palliative care patients' consciousness levels, and that it might be of use in end-of-life care, provided that it was additional to (rather than a replacement of) usual care, and patients and/or family members were involved in decisions about its use. Participants also noted that BIS, while possibly obtrusive, is not invasive, with some seeing it as equivalent to wearable technological devices such as activity watches.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants considered BIS technology might be of benefit to palliative care as a non-intrusive means of assisting clinical assessment and decision-making at the end of life, and concluded that it would therefore be acceptable to trial the technology with patients.

Defining “Continuous Deep Sedation” Using Treatment Protocol: A Proposal Article

Context: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is regarded as a far-reaching form of sedative use for symptom control, but there are no established uniform definitions.

Objectives: To propose types of sedative use related to CDS using treatment protocols with three parameters: documented treatment goals, rapidity of dose titration, and planned duration of treatment.

Methods: Opinion article.

Results: We propose four types of sedative use potentially related to CDS: (1) proportional sedation (treatment goal is symptom relief with regular monitoring to maximize patient communication, not a decrease in consciousness; with gradual use of sedatives; there is a chance to cease sedatives), (2) rapid proportional sedation (treatment goal is symptom relief with a rapid loading phase, followed by regular monitoring to maximize patient communication; there is a chance to cease sedatives), (3) deep sedation with a chance of cessation (deep sedation intended initially, followed by regular assessments of appropriateness of treatment goal; there is a chance to cease sedatives), and (4) continuous deep sedation until death (deep sedation indicated from initiation and maintained until death).

Conclusion: This article proposes an idea that the use of treatment protocols that visualize treatment goals, rapidity of dose titration, and planned duration of treatment may help understand the existing variations in sedative use over the world. The use of treatment protocols in the same way when defining a medical treatment in other specialty fields might clear up the current confusion about the use of sedatives.

The Decision-Making Process for Palliative Sedation for Patients with Advanced Cancer-Analysis from a Systematic Review of Prospective Studies

BACKGROUND

The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken.

METHOD

Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement.

RESULTS

Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services.

CONCLUSION

Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process.

Physicians' Opinion and Practice With the Continuous Use of Sedatives in the Last Days of Life

CONTEXT

There are few international studies about the continuous use of sedatives (CUS) in the last days of life.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe the experiences and opinions regarding CUS of physicians caring for terminally ill patients in seven countries.

METHODS

Questionnaire study about practices and experiences with CUS in the last days of life among physicians caring for terminally ill patients in Belgium (n = 175), Germany (n = 546), Italy (n = 214), Japan (n = 513), the Netherlands (n = 829), United Kingdom (n = 114) and Singapore (n = 21).

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 22%. Of the respondents, 88-99% reported that they had clinical experience of CUS in the last 12 months. More than 90% of respondents indicated that they mostly used midazolam for sedation. The use of sedatives to relieve suffering in the last days of life was considered acceptable in cases of physical suffering (87%-99%). This percentage was lower but still substantial in cases of psycho-existential suffering in the absence of physical symptoms (45%-88%). These percentages were lower when the prognosis was at least several weeks (22%-66% for physical suffering and 5%-42% for psycho-existential suffering). Of the respondents, 10% or less agreed with the statement that CUS is unnecessary because suffering can be alleviated with other measures. A substantial proportion (41%-95%) agreed with the statement that a competent patient with severe suffering has the right to demand the use of sedatives in the last days of life.

CONCLUSION

Many respondents in our study considered CUS acceptable for the relief of physical and psycho-existential suffering in the last days of life. The acceptability was lower regarding CUS for psycho-existential suffering and regarding CUS for patients with a longer life expectancy.

Monitoring nociception and awareness during palliative sedation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

DESIGN

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

DATA SOURCES

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

RESULTS

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

Palliative sedation in patients with advanced cancer in a specialized unit in a middle-income country: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the 5-year practice on palliative sedation in a specialized palliative care unit in a deprived region in Brazil, and to compare survival of patients with advanced cancer who were and were not sedated during their end-of-life care.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital. We described the practice of palliative sedation and compared the survival time between patients who were and were not sedated in their last days of life.

RESULTS

We included 906 patients who were admitted to the palliative care unit during the study period, of whom, 92 (10.2%) received palliative sedation. Patients who were sedated were younger, presented with higher rates of delirium, and reported more pain, suffering, and dyspnea than those who were not sedated. Median hospital survival of patients who received palliative sedation was 9.30 (CI 95%, 7.51-11.81) days and of patients who were not sedated was 8.2 (CI 95%, 7.3-9.0) days (P = 0.31). Adjusted for age and sex, palliative sedation was not significantly associated with hospital survival (hazard ratio = 0.93; CI 95%, 0.74-1.15).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Palliative sedation can be accomplished even in a deprived area. Delirium, dyspnea, and pain were more common in patients who were sedated. Median survival was not reduced in patients who were sedated.

General anaesthesia in end-of-life care: extending the indications for anaesthesia beyond surgery

In this article, we describe an extension of general anaesthesia – beyond facilitating surgery – to the relief of suffering during dying. Some refractory symptoms at the end of life (pain, delirium, distress, dyspnoea) might be managed by analgesia, but in high doses, adverse effects (e.g. respiratory depression) can hasten death. Sedation may be needed for agitation or distress and can be administered as continuous deep sedation (also referred to as terminal or palliative sedation) generally using benzodiazepines. However, for some patients these interventions are not enough, and others may express a clear desire to be completely unconscious as they die. We summarise the historical background of an established practice that we refer to as ‘general anaesthesia in end‐of‐life care’. We discuss its contexts and some ethical and legal issues that it raises, arguing that these are largely similar issues to those already raised by continuous deep sedation. To be a valid option, general anaesthesia in end‐of‐life care will require a clear multidisciplinary framework and consensus practice guidelines. We see these as an impending development for which the specialty should prepare. General anaesthesia in end‐of‐life care raises an important debate about the possible role of anaesthesia in the relief of suffering beyond the context of surgical/diagnostic interventions.

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.

A systematic review of quality improvement initiatives for continuous sedation until death

BACKGROUND

Extensive debate surrounds the practice of continuous sedation until death within end-of-life care.

AIM

To provide insight into existing initiatives to support the practice of continuous sedation until death and assess their feasibility and effectiveness.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020149630).

DATA SOURCES

Records were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to April 16 2020. Peer-reviewed studies reporting original data on initiatives to support the practice of continuous sedation were included for review.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the criteria and were included. Initiatives were focused on assessment tools of consciousness and discomfort (9), the use of guidelines and protocols (8), and expert consultation (3). All initiatives were reported as useful, acceptable, and feasible. Studies on the use of monitoring devices showed that a small proportion of patients were found to be awake, despite the patient being unresponsive according to the observer-based sedation scales. However, the wide range of values of these monitoring devices for comfortable and adequately sedated patients seems to hamper its overall implementation in daily clinical practice. Physicians reported changes in practice conform to guideline recommendations but the shift was modest at best. Expert consultation was regarded as supportive when sufficient expertise is lacking and helpful in avoiding possibly unnecessary sedations.

CONCLUSIONS

The reviewed initiatives may contribute to improvement of continuous sedation until death, though their evidence base is rather limited. More insight is needed into their feasibility, preconditions for effective implementation and impact in actual practice.

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.

Clinical and ethical aspects of palliative sedation with propofol-A retrospective quantitative and qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The anesthetic propofol is often mentioned as a drug that can be used in palliative sedation. The existing literature of how to use propofol in palliative sedation is scarce, with lack of information about how propofol could be initiated for palliative sedation, doses and treatment outcomes.

AIM

To describe the patient population, previous and concomitant medication, and clinical outcome when propofol was used for palliative sedation.

METHODS

A retrospective study with quantitative and qualitative data. All patients who during a 4.5-year period received propofol for palliative sedation at the Department of palliative medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Norway were included.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were included. In six patients the main indication for palliative sedation was pain, in seven dyspnoea and in one delirium. In eight of these cases propofol was chosen because of the pharmacokinetic properties (rapid effect), and in the remaining cases propofol was chosen because midazolam in spite of dose titration failed to provide sufficient symptom relief. In all patients sedation and adequate symptom control was achieved during manual dose titration. During the maintenance phase three of 14 patients had spontaneous awakenings. At death, propofol doses ranged from 60 to 340 mg/hour.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe suffering at the end of life can be successfully treated with propofol for palliative sedation. This can be performed in palliative medicine wards, but skilled observation and dose titration throughout the period of palliative sedation is necessary. Successful initial sedation does not guarantee uninterrupted sedation until death.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

In palliative care, some patients at the end of life can reach a stage where there have been maximal analgesic and or anxiolytic treatments though without achieving comfort in the awake state. This report describes and discusses use of propofol in these infrequent cases to relieve suffering as part of palliative care.

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Sedation practice and discomfort during withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients at end-of-life: a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter study

PURPOSE

Little is known on the incidence of discomfort during the end-of-life of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the impact of sedation on such discomfort. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of discomfort events according to levels of sedation.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of an observational prospective multicenter study comparing immediate extubation vs. terminal weaning for end-of-life in ICU patients. Discomforts including gasps, significant bronchial obstruction or high behavioural pain scale score, were prospectively assessed by nurses from mechanical ventilation withdrawal until death. Level of sedation was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and deep sedation was considered for a RASS - 5. Psychological disorders in family members were assessed up until 12 months after the death.

RESULTS

Among the 450 patients included in the original study, 226 (50%) experienced discomfort after mechanical ventilation withdrawal. Patients with discomfort received lower doses of midazolam and equivalent morphine, and were less likely to have deep sedation than patients without discomfort (59% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). After multivariate logistic regression, extubation (as compared terminal weaning) was the only factor associated with discomfort, whereas deep sedation and administration of vasoactive drugs were two factors independently associated with no discomfort. Long-term evaluation of psychological disorders in family members of dead patients did not differ between those with discomfort and the others.

CONCLUSION

Discomfort was frequent during end-of-life of ICU patients and was mainly associated with extubation and less profound 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.

Reflections on palliative sedation

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

Breakthrough Medication in Unresponsive Palliative Care Patients: Indications, Practice, and Efficacy

CONTEXT

An unresponsive patient's need and their response to breakthrough medication is determined by clinical assessment and/or observational measures. How closely these methods match the patient's experience is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the efficacy and effectiveness of breakthrough medication in unresponsive patients and the perception of patient comfort made by nurses and family.

METHODS

A prospective study of breakthrough medication in unresponsive patients. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Patient Comfort Score (PCS) were compared with time-matched Bispectral Index (BIS) Scores. The effects of opioid vs. opioid + benzodiazepine breakthroughs and the relation between synchronous nurse and family measurements of the PCS were evaluated. Analysis of variance and paired t-tests were used for BIS analyses and nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests for RASS and PCS.

RESULTS

Significant reductions at 30 and 60 minutes after breakthrough medication were noted for BIS (P < 0.0004), RASS (P = 0.043 and 0.004, respectively), and PCS (P < 0.0004). A direct comparison of the effect of opioid breakthrough medication vs. opioid plus benzodiazepine revealed no significant difference (BIS, P = 0.512; RASS, P = 0.195; PCS, P = 0.119). Of the 157 synchronous nurse and family measures of patient comfort, families rated patient discomfort significantly higher than nurses (P < 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

This study provides additional evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of breakthrough medication and the merit of observational measures in determining a patient's response. The onset of action is evident at 30 minutes after injection. Family assessment of patient comfort may be more nuanced than that of nurses, and they not uncommonly rate patient discomfort higher than nurses.