Efficacy of two types of palliative sedation therapy defined using intervention protocols: proportional vs. deep sedation

Continuous Deep Sedation for Psycho-Existential Suffering: A Multicenter Nationwide Study

Background: There is ongoing debate on whether continuous deep sedation (CDS) for psycho-existential suffering is appropriate. Objective: We aimed to (1) clarify clinical practice of CDS for psycho-existential suffering and (2) assess its impact on patients' survival. Methods: Advanced cancer patients admitted to 23 palliative care units in 2017 were consecutively enrolled. We compared patients' characteristics, CDS practices, and survival between those receiving CDS for psycho-existential suffering ± physical symptoms and only for physical symptoms. Results: Of 164 patients analyzed, 14 (8.5%) received CDS for psycho-existential suffering ± physical symptoms and only one of them (0.6%) solely for psycho-existential suffering. Patients receiving CDS for psycho-existential suffering, compared with those only for physical symptoms, were likely to have no specific religion (p = 0.025), and desired (78.6% vs. 22.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) and requested a hastened death more frequently (57.1% vs. 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). All of them had a poor physical condition with limited estimated survival, and mostly (71%) received intermittent sedation before CDS. CDS for psycho-existential suffering caused greater physicians' discomfort (p = 0.037), and lasted for longer (p = 0.029). Dependency, loss of autonomy, and hopelessness were common reasons for psycho-existential suffering that required CDS. The survival time after CDS initiation was longer in patients receiving it for psycho-existential suffering (log-rank, p = 0.021). Conclusion: CDS was applied to patients who suffered from psycho-existential suffering, which often associated with desire or request for a hastened death. Further studies and debate are warranted to develop feasible treatment strategies for psycho-existential suffering.

Continuous and deep sedation until death after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies in intensive care units: A national survey

BACKGROUND

Continuous and deep sedation until death is a much highly debated end-of-life practice. France is unique in having a regulatory framework for it. However, there are no data on its practice in intensive care units (ICUs).

AIM

The aim is to describe continuous and deep sedation in relation to the framework in the specific context of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in ICUs, that is, its decision-making process and its practice compared to other end-of-life practices in this setting.

DESIGN AND SETTING

French multicenter observational study. Consecutive ICU patients who died after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 343 patients in 57 ICUs, 208 (60%) with continuous and deep sedation. A formalized procedure for continuous and deep sedation was available in 32% of the ICUs. Continuous and deep sedation was not the result of a collegial decision-making process in 17% of cases, and did not involve consultation with an external physician in 29% of cases. The most commonly used sedative medicines were midazolam (10 [5-18] mg h-1) and propofol (200 [120-250] mg h -1). The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was -5 in 60% of cases. Analgesia was associated with sedation in 94% of cases. Compared with other end-of-life sedative practices (n = 98), medicines doses were higher with no difference in the depth of sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a poor compliance with the framework for continuous and deep sedation. It highlights the need to formalize it to improve the decision-making process and the match between the intent, the practice and the actual effect.

Deep continuous patient-requested sedation until death: a multicentric study

OBJECTIVES

In 2016, a new law was adopted in France granting patients the right, under specific conditions, to continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD). The goal of this study was to measure the frequency of requests for CDSUD from patients in palliative care.

METHODS

The data collected from the medical records of patients in palliative care units (PCU) or followed by palliative care support teams (PCST) in the Rhône-Alpes area, who died after CDSUD, focused on the patient's characteristics, the drugs used (and compliance with regulatory processes).

RESULTS

All 12 PCU and 12 of the 24 PCST were included. Among the 8500 patients followed, 42 (0.5%) requested CDSUD until death. The patients were: 65.7 (SD=13.7) years old, highly educated (69%), had cancer (81%), refractory symptoms (98%) and mostly psychoexistential distress (69%). The request was rejected for 2 (5%) patients and delayed for 31 (74%) patients. After a delay of a mean 8 days, 13 (31%) patients were granted CDSUD. The drug used was midazolam at 115 mg/24 hours (15-480), during a mean of 3 days. PCUs used lower dosages than PCSTs (83 vs 147), with significantly lower initial doses (39 mg vs 132 mg, p=0.01). A life-threatening condition was recorded in 13 cases (31%) and a collegial decision was taken in 25 cases (60%).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the low rate of request and the even lower rate of CDSUD in specialised palliative care. However, the sedation for psychoexistential distress and the lack of procedure records raise ethical questions.

Chlorpromazine's Potential Role in Palliating Distressing Symptoms Associated with Hyperactive Delirium in Patients at End of Life

Background: The hyperactive subtype of delirium is characterized by agitation, restlessness, delusions, and/or hallucinations, which commonly present near end of life (EoL). Symptom relief often requires the use of medications, such as chlorpromazine (CPZ), to reduce patient distress by inducing proportional sedation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate CPZ's potential role in managing the distress of hyperactive delirium in patients receiving EoL care. Methods: A retrospective observational study among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer at EoL between January 2020 to December 2021. Results: Sustained improvement in symptoms of delirium was seen in 80% of patients as identified in the palliative psychiatrist's progress notes. Meanwhile, 75% of patient's improvement was reported in nursing-driven Delirium Observation Screening Scale. Conclusion: This study elucidates that at doses of ∼100 mg/day, CPZ is potentially an effective medication for patients with advanced cancer, experiencing hyperactive delirium in their final week of life.

Current Status and Future Directions of Research on Palliative Sedation

Patients with terminal cancer experience very severe symptoms during the end of life, and palliative sedation (PS) may be considered if those symptoms are refractory to any other treatment. This brief report presents ethical considerations, practices, and recent concerns on PS. PS is quite different from euthanasia. There is a lack of consensus and standards on protocols, but its notable effects have been reported in hospice care settings. Most studies to date have reported no difference in survival between patients receiving PS and those not, and PS must be conducted proportionally with the lightest level of sedation. The most common indication for PS is delirium, and midazolam is the main sedative used. It is recommended that information regarding PS should be provided to patients and their caregivers repeatedly as early as possible. Existential suffering alone is not an indication for PS, and there is a lack of evidence on bispectral analysis. Additional research on PS is needed in Korea.

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.

Challenges and Strategies Regarding Sedation at the End of Life in Hospitals and Nursing Homes

CONTEXT

Sedation is an accepted, but controversially discussed and challenging measure to treat suffering at the end of life. Although most people die in hospitals or nursing homes, little is known how professionals in these settings deal with sedatives and sedation at the end of life.

OBJECTIVES

To explore 1) challenges regarding use of sedatives and sedation at the end of life in hospitals and nursing homes, and 2) strategies, and supportive measures to meet these challenges, as perceived by nurses and physicians.

METHODS

Multicenter qualitative interview study. Forty-nine participants: 12 general practitioners and 12 nurses from five nursing homes, 12 physicians, and 13 nurses from five hospital departments (hematology/oncology (n = 2), neurology, geriatrics, gynecology). Semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data analysis guided by framework approach.

RESULTS

Perceived challenges relate to three levels of the care situation: individual, interaction with others, and work environment. The main challenge was defining the adequate timing and/or dose. Other challenges, e.g., disagreements regarding indication or legal uncertainties, were highly interrelated, and strongly associated with this major challenge. Reported strategies and supportive measures to address challenges also corresponded to the three interrelated levels. Major named strategies were education and training, joint decision-making within the team and regular discussion with the patient and family. On the level work environment, no implemented strategies, but wishes for change were identified.

CONCLUSION

To meet the identified challenges in a sustainable way and enable continuous improvement of quality of care, best practice recommendations, and other supportive measures have to address all identified levels of challenges.

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.

Family experience of palliative sedation therapy: proportional vs. continuous deep sedation

PURPOSE

Some patients experience intense symptoms refractory to intensive palliative care, and palliative sedation is sometimes used. Palliative sedation may be classified into proportional and continuous deep sedation (CDS). The primary aim of this study was to compare family experience between families of patients who received proportional or CDS.

METHODS

A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted involving bereaved families of cancer patients who received proportional or CDS based on a sedation protocol. Overall evaluation of sedation (satisfaction, family-perceived distress, appropriateness of timing, and patient distress) and 13-item family concerns, good death, satisfaction with care, depression, quality of care, unfinished business, and balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication were measured.

RESULTS

Among the 2120 patients who died, 222 patients received a continuous infusion of midazolam. A sedation protocol was used in 147 patients, and questionnaires were sent to 124 families. A total of 78 responses were finally returned (proportional, 58 vs. CDS, 20). There were no significant differences in the overall evaluation, family concerns, total score of good death, satisfaction, depression, or balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication. On the other hand, some quality of care items, i.e., relationship with medical staff (P < 0.01), physical care by nurses (P = 0.04), and coordination and consistency (P = 0.04), were significantly better in the CDS group than in the proportional sedation group. Family-reported unfinished business was also better in the CDS group, with marginal significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Family experience of CDS was not less favorable than proportional sedation, and actually rated more favorably for some elements of quality of care and unfinished business.

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.

Effect of continuous deep sedation on survival in the last days of life of cancer patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Continuous deep sedation is ethically controversial with respect to whether it shortens a patient's life.

AIM

To examine whether continuous deep sedation shortens patient survival from the day of Palliative Performance Scale decline to 20 (PPS20).

DESIGN

A part of a multicenter prospective cohort study (EASED study).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We recruited consecutive adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to 23 participating palliative care units in 2017 in Japan. We compared survival from PPS20 between those who did and did not receive continuous deep sedation. Continuous deep sedation was defined as the continuous administration of sedative medication with the intention to keep a patient continuously unconscious to alleviate otherwise uncontrollable symptoms, but the dose of sedatives was adjusted to achieve adequate symptom relief for each patient. The propensity score-weighting method was used to control for potential confounders, and five sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1926 patients were enrolled. Patients discharged alive were excluded, and we analyzed 1625 patients of whom 156 (9.6%) received continuous deep sedation. Median survival from PPS20 of 1625 patients was 81 h (95% CI: 77-88). The RASS scores decreased to ⩽-4 was 66% at 24 h. Continuous deep sedation was not associated with a significant survival risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.33). All sensitivity analyses, including continuous deep sedation defined as the RASS score was ⩽-4 achieved the essentially the same results.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous deep sedation with careful dose adjustment was not associated with shorter survival in the last days of life in patients with advanced cancer.

Efficacy of Proportional Sedation and Deep Sedation Defined by Sedation Protocols: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Comparative Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of two types of palliative sedation: proportional and deep sedation, defined by sedation protocols.

METHODS

From a multicenter prospective observational study, we analyzed the data of those patients who received the continuous infusion of midazolam according to the sedation protocol. The primary endpoint was goal achievement at 4 hours: in proportional sedation, symptom relief (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale: IPOS ≤ 1) and absence of agitation (modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: RASS ≤ 0); in deep sedation, the achievement of deep sedation (RASS ≤ -4). Secondary endpoints included deep sedation as a result of proportional sedation, communication capacity (Communication Capacity Scale item 4 ≤ 2), IPOS and RASS scores, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients from 14 palliative care units were analyzed: proportional sedation (n = 64) and deep sedation (n = 17). At 4 hours, the goal was achieved in 77% (n = 49; 95% confidence interval: 66-87) with proportional sedation; and 88% (n = 15; 71-100) with deep sedation. Deep sedation was necessary in 45% of those who received proportional sedation. Communication capacity was maintained in 34% with proportional sedation and 10% with deep sedation. IPOS decreased from 3.5 to 0.9 with proportional sedation, and 3.5 to 0.4 with deep sedation; RASS decreased from +0.3 to -2.6, and +0.4 to -4.2, respectively. Fatal events related to the treatment occurred in 2% (n = 1) with proportional and none with deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

Proportional sedation achieved satisfactory symptom relief while maintaining some patients' consciousness, and deep sedation achieved good symptom relief while the majority of patients lost consciousness.

Visualizing How to Use Parenteral Opioids for Terminal Cancer Dyspnea: A Pilot, Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

CONTEXT

How physicians use opioids for dyspnea in imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea) varies markedly, which could hamper quality care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal dyspnea, and explore its outcomes over 24 hours.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were: advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, ECOG performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS). We developed an algorithm to visualize how palliative care physicians would use parenteral opioids. Participating physicians (palliative care specialists) initiated parenteral opioids, choosing whether to use the algorithm based on their preference. We measured the adherence rate to the algorithm over 24 hours (predefined goal = 70%), and compared dyspnea IPOS scores and adverse events between patients with and without algorithm-based treatment.

RESULTS

Of 164 patients (median survival = 5 days), 71 (43%) received algorithm-based treatment, and 70 (99%; 95% confidence interval = 92%-100%) adhered to it over 24 hours. In a complete case analysis, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 2.9 (standard error = 0.1) to 1.5 (0.1) in the algorithm group (n = 54; P < 0.001), and 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.1) in the non-algorithm group (n = 72; P < 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in changes in dyspnea IPOS scores (P = 0.65). Adverse events were rare (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

The algorithm-based treatment was feasible, and might be as effective and safe as the usual care by palliative care specialists. Its implementation may help physicians provide quality care for terminal dyspnea.

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.

How Successful Is Parenteral Oxycodone for Relieving Terminal Cancer Dyspnea Compared With Morphine? A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

CONTEXT

Parenteral morphine is widely used for dyspnea of imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea). However, the efficacy of other opioids such as oxycodone remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the efficacy of parenteral oxycodone vs. morphine by continuous infusion over 24 hours in cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for which oxycodone or morphine was initiated by continuous infusion. We measured dyspnea IPOS scores over 24 hours.

RESULTS

We analyzed 164 patients who received oxycodone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 138) for dyspnea (median survival = 5 days). The mean age was 70 years, 58 patients (35%) had lung cancer, and 97 (59%) had lung metastases. Complete case analysis revealed that mean dyspnea IPOS scores decreased from 3.0 (standard deviation = 0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) in the oxycodone group (difference in means = 1.5; P < 0.001), and from 2.9 (0.7) to 1.6 (1.0) in the morphine group (difference in means = 1.3; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences existed in the IPOS scores at 24 hours (P = 0.753). Adverse events were seen in no and 5 patients in the oxycodone and morphine groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral oxycodone may be equally effective and safe as morphine in the treatment of terminal dyspnea in cancer patients. Future randomized controlled trials should confirm the efficacy and safety of opioids other than morphine for terminal dyspnea.

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.

Barriers in the Decision Making About and Performance of Continuous Sedation Until Death in Nursing Homes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

While decision making about and performance of continuous sedation involve many challenges, they appear to be particularly pervasive in nursing homes. This study aims to identify barriers to the decision making and performance of continuous sedation until death in Flemish nursing homes as experienced by the health care professionals involved.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Ten focus groups were held with 71 health care professionals including 16 palliative care physicians, 42 general practitioners, and 13 nursing home staff. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a constant comparative approach.

RESULTS

Perceived barriers concerned factors prior to and during sedation and were classified according to three types: (a) personal barriers related to knowledge and skills including the lack of clarity on what continuous sedation should be used for (linguistic ambiguity) and when and how it should be used (practical ambiguity); (b) relational barriers concerning communication and collaboration both between health care professionals and with family; (c) organizational barriers related to the organization of care in nursing homes where, for example, there is no on-site physician, or where the recommended medication is not always available.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings suggest there are considerable challenges for sound decision making about and performance of continuous sedation until death in nursing homes. There is a need for multicomponent initiatives that provide guidance in the context of the complexity of a resident's medical situation, the family, and the specific organization of care, which would have the potential to facilitate and improve the decision-making process and performance of continuous sedation in nursing homes.

Unanswered questions and future direction in the management of terminal breathlessness in patients with cancer

Breathlessness is among the most common and deteriorating symptoms in patients with advanced cancer, which may worsen towards the end of life. Breathlessness in patients with estimated life expectancy of weeks to days has unique clinical features: it tends to worsen rapidly over days to hours as death approaches often despite current symptom control measures. Breathlessness in patients during the last weeks to days of life can be called ‘terminal breathlessness’. While evidence has accumulated for the management of breathlessness in patients with cancer who are not dying, such evidence may not be fully applied to terminal breathlessness. Only a few studies have investigated the best practice of terminal breathlessness in patients with cancer. In this paper, we summarise the current evidence for the management of terminal breathlessness, and propose future directions of clinical research.

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.

The Principles of Revised Clinical Guidelines about Palliative Sedation Therapy of the Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine

Background: When the suffering of a terminally ill patient is intolerable and refractory, sedatives are sometimes used for symptom relief. Objective: To describe the main principles of revised Japanese clinical guidelines about palliative sedation therapy. Design: Consensus methods using the Delphi technique were used. Results: The main principles of the guidelines that were newly defined or developed are as follows: (1) palliative sedation was defined as "administration of sedatives for the purpose of alleviating refractory suffering" (excluding the aim of reducing patient consciousness); (2) palliative sedation was classified according to the method of administration of sedatives: respite sedation versus continuous sedation (including (continuous) proportional sedation and continuous deep sedation); (3) a description of state-of-the-art recommended treatments for difficult symptoms such as delirium, dyspnea, and pain before the symptom was determined as refractory was included; (4) the principle of proportionality was newly defined from an ethical point of view; and (5) families' consent was regarded as being desirable (mandatory in the previous version). Conclusions: We described the main principles of revised Japanese clinical guidelines about palliative sedation therapy. Further consensus building is necessary.

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.

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.