Association between continuous deep sedation and survival time in terminally ill cancer patients

The experience of nurses when providing care across acts that may be perceived as death hastening: A qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Nurses can be involved in interventions that they perceive as hastening death. These interventions may intentionally cause death, as in the case of assisted dying or result in death as an unintended consequence, such as when life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn. There is increasing evidence regarding nurses' experiences of providing care in these separate contexts. However, it remains less clear whether parallels exist in experiences across various acts that nurses might consider death hastening.

AIM

To synthesise qualitative research findings on the lived experiences of nurses when involved with acts that may be perceived as death hastening.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis utilising thematic synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

An initial search of CINHAL, PsychInfo and Medline was undertaken in December 2022 and updated in August 2024. Papers were quality assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research.

RESULTS

Twenty-three papers were included in the review. An overarching theme linked to the emotional labour required to provide care was developed. Three sub-themes influence emotional labour: (1) experiencing personal and professional conflicts, (2) the provision of 'normal(ised)' care and (3) perceptions of palliative care as a proxy for hastening death.

CONCLUSIONS

This synthesis demonstrates that nurses experience significant emotional labour across acts that may be perceived as death hastening. The level of emotional labour is influenced by nurses' uncertainty of the ethical and moral status of these interventions and navigating these uncertainties alongside colleagues, patients and those important to them during care delivery.

[New recommendations on palliative sedation]

Palliative sedation aims to relieve refractory suffering in patients with life-limiting disease. The 2009 framework on palliative sedation of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) has recently been updated. Recommendations have also been formulated by the research group SedPall in Germany. This article describes the social and ethical complexity of decision-making and summarises the recommendations. Patient autonomy is emphasised. Refractoriness of the suffering should be determined jointly by physician and patient. Sedation should be proportional, that is to say, its form and duration should be adapted to the patient's individual situation. The decision on palliative sedation and that on hydration involve two separate decision-making processes. Midazolam should be used as first choice. Particular attention should be paid to the patient's relatives/significant others and the treating team.

Palliative Care against Medically Assisted Death? Misunderstanding and Instrumental Objections

CONTEXT

Palliative Care (PC) and Medically Assisted Death (MAD), specifically assisted suicide and euthanasia, are distinct practices characterized by differing objectives, methods, implementation and outcomes. Representatives of PC, including scientific societies or physicians, may, in certain cases, adopt a critical stance towards MAD.

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to explore the underlying reasons for such opposition.

METHODS

To this end, the philosophical underpinnings and legal conditions of PC and MAD will be analyzed.

RESULTS

The ethical and philosophical landscape of PC and MAD leads us to identify, on one hand, the Hippocratic paradigm and, on the other hand, what we call Socratic medicine. From a legal analysis perspective, the presence of intolerable suffering serves as a common ground between the two practices, albeit risking being the subject of misunderstandings and instrumental objections.

CONCLUSION

Preventing an instrumental use of PC in relation to MAD is crucial to enable the respect and the coexistence of the two practices.

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.

Continuous palliative sedation in terminally ill patients with cancer: a retrospective observational cohort study from a Chinese palliative care unit

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe a 4-year practice of continuous palliative sedation (CPS) in a palliative medicine ward of an academic hospital in China. To compare the survival time of patients with cancer with and without CPS during end-of-life care, we used the propensity score matching method and explored potential patient-related factors.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

The palliative ward at a tertiary teaching hospital between January 2018 and 10 May 2022, in Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

PARTICIPANTS

The palliative care unit had 1445 deaths. We excluded 283 patients who were sedated on admission due to mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilators, 122 patients who were sedated due to epilepsy and sleep disorders, 69 patients without cancer, 26 patients who were younger than 18 years, 435 patients with end-of-life intervention when the patients' vital signs were unstable and 5 patients with unavailable medical records. Finally, we included 505 patients with cancer who met our requirements.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The survival time and analysis of sedation potential factors between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The total prevalence of CPS was 39.7%. Patients who were sedated more commonly experienced delirium, dyspnoea, refractory existential or psychological distress, and pain. After propensity score matching, the median survival was 10 (IQR: 5-17.75) and 9 days (IQR: 4-16) with and without CPS, respectively. After matching, the two survival curves of the sedated and non-sedated groups were no different (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; log-rank p=0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Developing countries also practise palliative sedation. Median survival was not different between patients who were and were not sedated.

Comparison of survival times of advanced cancer patients with palliative care at home and in hospital

OBJECTIVES

One primary concern about receiving care at home is that survival might be shortened because the quality and quantity of treatment provided at home will be inferior to that given in the hospital. Although our previous study demonstrated a longer survival of those with home-based palliative care (PC), it lacked adjustment for some potential confounders including symptoms and treatments during the stay. We aimed to compare the survival times among advanced cancer patients receiving home-based and hospital-based PC with adjusting for symptoms and treatments.

METHOD

We compared survival time of participants who enrolled two multicenter, prospective cohort studies of advanced cancer patients at 45-home-based PC services between July 2017 and December 2017, and at 23-hospital-based PC services between January 2017 and December 2017. We analyzed with stratification by the estimated survival of Days, Weeks, and Months, which were defined by modified Prognosis in Palliative care Study predictor models-A. We conducted a Cox regression analysis with adjusting for potential confounders including symptoms and treatments during the stay.

RESULTS

A total of 2,998 patients were enrolled in both studies and 2,878 patients were analyzed; 988 patients receiving home-based PC and 1,890 receiving hospital-based PC. The survival time of patients receiving home-based PC was significantly longer than that of patients receiving hospital-based PC for the Days Prognosis (estimated median survival time: 10 days [95% CI 8.1-11.8] vs. 9 days [95% CI 8.3-10.4], p = 0.157), the Weeks prognosis (32 days [95% CI 28.9-35.4] vs. 22 days [95% CI 20.3-22.9], p < 0.001), and the Months Prognosis, (65 days [95% CI 58.2-73.2] vs. 32 days [95% CI 28.9-35.4], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of advanced cancer patients with a Weeks or Months prognosis, those receiving home-based PC survived longer than those receiving hospital-based PC after adjusting for symptoms and treatments.

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.

Palliative Sedation—The Last Resort in Case of Difficult Symptom Control: A Narrative Review and Experiences from Palliative Care in Switzerland

Palliative sedation can be considered as “the last resort” in order to treat unbearable, refractory symptoms or suffering in end-of-life patients. The aim is symptom relief and not to induce death as in the case of euthanasia. The treatment might be one of the most challenging therapeutic options in the field of palliative care, involving both ethical and practical issues. Still, studies have shown that it is a safe and valuable treatment and in general does not shorten the life of the patient. Since patients in Switzerland have the legal option of assisted suicide, palliative sedation is an alternative that has become increasingly important. The use of palliative sedation was reported in 17.5% of all patients admitted to palliative care in Switzerland, making the country of those with the highest use of this treatment. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss ethical and practical issues in palliative sedation, with specific focus on experiences from Switzerland. Indications, ethical considerations, drugs of choice and duration are discussed. Decision making should be based on solid guidelines. When used correctly, palliative sedation is an important and useful tool in palliative care in order to provide good symptom relief.

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.

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.

Characteristics Associated with Survival in Patients Receiving Continuous Deep Sedation in a Hospice Care Unit

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is an extreme form of palliative sedation to relieve refractory symptoms at the end of life. In this study, we shared our experiences with CDS and examined the clinical characteristics associated with survival in patients with terminal cancer who received CDS. We conducted a chart audit of 106 consecutive patients with terminal cancer who received CDS at a single hospice care unit between January 2014 and December 2016. Survival was defined as the first day of admission to the date of death. The associations between clinical characteristics and survival were presented as hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a Cox proportional hazard model. The mean age of participants was 65.2 years, and 33.0% (n=35) were women. Diazepam was the most commonly administered drug, and haloperidol or lorazepam were also used if needed. One sedative was enough for a majority of the patients. Stepwise multivariate analysis identified poor functioning, a high Palliative Prognostic Index score, hyperbilirubinemia, high serum ferritin levels, and a low number of sedatives as independent poor prognostic factors. Our experiences and findings are expected to be helpful for shared decision-making and further research on palliative sedation.

Goods, causes and intentions: problems with applying the doctrine of double effect to palliative sedation

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation and analgesia are employed in patients with refractory and intractable symptoms at the end of life to reduce their suffering by lowering their level of consciousness. The doctrine of double effect, a philosophical principle that justifies doing a "good action" with a potentially "bad effect," is frequently employed to provide an ethical justification for this practice.

MAIN TEXT

We argue that palliative sedation and analgesia do not fulfill the conditions required to apply the doctrine of double effect, and therefore its use in this domain is inappropriate. Furthermore, we argue that the frequent application of the doctrine of double effect to palliative sedation and analgesia reflects physicians' discomfort with the complex moral, intentional, and causal aspects of end-of-life care.

CONCLUSIONS

We are concerned that this misapplication of the doctrine of double effect can consequently impair physicians' ethical reasoning and relationships with patients at the end of life.

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.