Should (Prophylactic) Medications Be Used for the Management of Death Rattle?

Assessment of the efficacy of palliative sedation in advanced cancer patients by evaluating discomfort levels: a prospective, international, multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation involves the intentional proportional lowering of the level of consciousness in patients with life-limiting disease who are experiencing refractory suffering. The efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be monitored to ensure patient comfort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy using discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, adult patients with advanced malignancies were recruited from hospice units, palliative care units, and hospital wards in five European countries. Health care professionals used proxy observations of discomfort levels (Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type, range 0-27) and sedation/agitation levels (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients), range - 5 to + 4) to evaluate the efficacy of palliative sedation.

RESULTS

In 78 participants, discomfort levels were monitored during palliative sedation. The mean discomfort score before start was 9.4 points (95% CI 8.3-10.5), which showed a significant decrease of 6.0 points (95% CI 4.8-7.1) after start of sedation for the total sedation period. In the multivariable analysis, no significant factors influencing baseline discomfort levels were identified. The discomfort and depth of sedation scores were found to be positively correlated, with an r of 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.82). The internal consistency of the discomfort scale was good (0.83), but the "Noisy breathing" item was less informative of the total discomfort score.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of palliative sedation can be evaluated by measuring discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels. The measurement of discomfort levels might provide a more specific and detailed evaluation of adequate sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

Pharmacological treatment of pain, dyspnea, death rattle, fever, nausea, and vomiting in the last days of life in older people: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Evidence based guidelines for treatment of physical symptoms during the last days of life in older people are not available.

AIM

We wanted to synthesize the existing evidence on the pharmacological treatment of pain, dyspnea, death rattle, fever, nausea, and vomiting during the last days of life in older people to develop recommendations that can help guide clinical practice.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO #CRD42023406100) and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception till March 2023, together with national and international guideline databases.

RESULTS

Four predominantly descriptive studies on opioid use were included for the treatment of pain and four for dyspnea, without clear evidence for the choice of one specific opioid, nor a specific opioid dose. For death rattle, five randomized controlled trials and two retrospective studies were included. These provide evidence for the prophylactic treatment of death rattle with hyoscine butylbromide. For fever, nausea, and vomiting, no articles met the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence exists to guide the pharmacological treatment of pain, dyspnea, death rattle, fever, nausea, and vomiting in the last days of life of older people. Other than the use of opioids for treatment of pain and dyspnea and prophylactic administration of hyoscine butylbromide to decrease the likelihood of developing death rattle, no specific recommendations can be formulated for use in clinical practice. This demonstrates the challenging nature of research in the last days of life of older people, despite its pressing need.

An Approach to Caring for Patients and Family of Patients Dying in the ICU

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Death is common in the ICU and often occurs after a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies. Care of the dying is a core skill for ICU clinicians, requiring expert communication, primarily with family of critically ill patients.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Limited high-quality evidence supports specific practices related to the care of dying patients in the ICU; thus, many of the recommendations that exist are based on expert opinion. Value exists in sharing a practical approach to caring for patients during the dying process, including topics to be addressed with family members, rationales for recommended care, and strategies for implementing comfort measures only. Through dedicated preparation and planning, clinicians can help family members navigate this intense experience.

SUMMARY

After a decision had been made to discontinue life-sustaining therapies, family members need to be given a clear description of comfort measures only and provided with additional detail about what it entails, including therapies or interventions to be discontinued, monitoring during the dying process, and common features of the dying process. Order sets can be a valuable resource for ensuring that adequate analgesia and sedation are available and the care plan is enacted properly. To achieve a good death for patients, a collaborative effort among members of the care team is essential.

Questions From Family Members During the Dying Process And Moral Distress Experienced by ICU Nurses

BACKGROUND

For a hospitalized patient, transitioning to comfort measures only (CMO) involves discontinuation of life-prolonging interventions with a goal of allowing natural death. Nurses play a pivotal role during the provision of CMO, caring for both the dying patient and their family.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the experiences of ICU nurses caring for patients receiving CMO.

METHODS

Between October 2020 and June 2021, nurses in the neuro- and medical-cardiac intensive care units at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, WA, completed surveys about their experiences providing CMO. Surveys addressed involvement in discussions about CMO and questions asked by family members of dying patients. We also assessed nurses' moral distress related to CMO and used ordinal logistic regression to examine predictors of moral distress.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 82 nurses (response rate 44%), with 79 (96%) reporting experience providing CMO in the previous year. Most preferred to be present for discussions between physicians or advanced practice providers and family members about transitioning to CMO (89% most of the time or always); however, only 31% were present most of the time or always. Questions from family about time to death, changes in breathing, and medications to relieve symptoms were common. Most nurses reported moral distress at least some of the time when providing CMO (62%). Feeling well-prepared to answer specific questions from family was associated with less moral distress.

CONCLUSION

There is discordance between nurses' preferences for inclusion in discussions about the transition to CMO and their actual presence. Moral distress is common for nurses when providing CMO and feeling prepared to answer questions from family members may attenuate distress.