Neurophysiological Assessments During Continuous Sedation Until Death Put Validity of Observational Assessments Into Question: A Prospective Observational Study

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.

Noninvasive monitoring technologies to identify discomfort and distressing symptoms in persons with limited communication at the end of life: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Discomfort and distressing symptoms are common at the end of life, while people in this stage are often no longer able to express themselves. Technologies may aid clinicians in detecting and treating these symptoms to improve end-of-life care. This review provides an overview of noninvasive monitoring technologies that may be applied to persons with limited communication at the end of life to identify discomfort.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in nine databases, and experts were consulted. Manuscripts were included if they were written in English, Dutch, German, French, Japanese or Chinese, if the monitoring technology measured discomfort or distressing symptoms, was noninvasive, could be continuously administered for 4 hours and was potentially applicable for bed-ridden people. The screening was performed by two researchers independently. Information about the technology, its clinimetrics (validity, reliability, sensitivity, specificity, responsiveness), acceptability, and feasibility were extracted.

RESULTS

Of the 3,414 identified manuscripts, 229 met the eligibility criteria. A variety of monitoring technologies were identified, including actigraphy, brain activity monitoring, electrocardiography, electrodermal activity monitoring, surface electromyography, incontinence sensors, multimodal systems, and noncontact monitoring systems. The main indicators of discomfort monitored by these technologies were sleep, level of consciousness, risk of pressure ulcers, urinary incontinence, agitation, and pain. For the end-of-life phase, brain activity monitors could be helpful and acceptable to monitor the level of consciousness during palliative sedation. However, no manuscripts have reported on the clinimetrics, feasibility, and acceptability of the other technologies for the end-of-life phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive monitoring technologies are available to measure common symptoms at the end of life. Future research should evaluate the quality of evidence provided by existing studies and investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of these technologies in the end-of-life setting. Guidelines for studies on healthcare technologies should be better implemented and further developed.

Comparison of inpatient and outpatient palliative sedation practice - A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Palliative sedation (PS) is an intrusive measure to relieve patients at the end of their life from otherwise untreatable symptoms. Intensive discussion of the advantages and limitations of palliative care with the patients and their relatives should precede the initiation of PS since PS is terminated by the patient's death in most cases. Drugs for PS are usually administered intravenously. Midazolam is widely used, either alone or in combination with other substances. PS can be conducted in both inpatient and outpatient settings; however, a quality analysis comparing both modalities was missing so far.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study collected data from patients undergoing PS inpatient at the palliative care unit (PCU, n = 26) or outpatient at a hospice (n = 2) or at home (specialized outpatient palliative care [SAPV], n = 31) between July 2017 and June 2018. Demographical data, indications for PS, and drug protocols were analyzed. The depth of sedation according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the degree of satisfaction of staff members and patient's relatives were included as parameters for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing PS at the PCU were slightly younger compared to outpatients (hospice and SAPV combined). Most patients suffered from malignant diseases, and midazolam was the backbone of sedation for inpatients and outpatients. The median depth of sedation was between +1 and -3 according to the RASS with a trend to deeper sedation prior to death. The median degree of satisfaction was "good," scored by staff members and by patient's relatives. Significant differences between inpatients and outpatients were not seen in protocols, depth of sedation, and degree of satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The data support the thesis that PS is possible for inpatients and outpatients with comparable results. For choosing the best place for PS, other aspects such as patient's and relative's wishes, stress, and medical reasons should be considered.

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.