Controlled Sedation for Refractory Suffering: Part I

A Survey of Hospice and Palliative Care Clinicians' Experiences and Attitudes Regarding the Use of Palliative Sedation

BACKGROUND

A variety of terms and attitudes surround palliative sedation (PS) with little research devoted to hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians' perceptions and experiences with PS. These factors may contribute to the wide variability in the reported prevalence of PS.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to better identify hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinician attitudes toward, and clinical experiences with palliative sedation (PS).

METHODS

A 32-question survey was distributed to members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (n = 4678). The questions explored the language clinicians use for PS, and their experiences with PS.

RESULTS

Nine hundred thirty-six (20% response rate) responded to the survey. About 83.21% preferred the terminology of PS compared with other terms. A majority felt that PS is a bioethically appropriate treatment for refractory physical and nonphysical symptoms in dying patients. Most felt PS was not an appropriate term in clinical scenarios when sedation occurred as an unintended side effect from standard treatments. Hospice clinicians use PS more consistently and with less distress than nonhospice clinician respondents. Benzodiazepines (63.1%) and barbiturates (18.9%) are most commonly prescribed for PS.

CONCLUSION

PS is the preferred term among HPC clinicians for the proportionate use of pharmacotherapies to intentionally lower awareness for refractory symptoms in dying patients. PS is a bioethically appropriate treatment for refractory symptoms in dying patients. However, there is a lack of clear agreement about what is included in PS and how the practice of PS should be best delivered in different clinical scenarios. Future efforts to investigate PS should focus on describing the clinical scenarios in which PS is utilized and on the level of intended sedation necessary, in an effort to better unify the practice of PS.

European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care

The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) considers sedation to be an important and necessary therapy in the care of selected palliative care patients with otherwise refractory distress. Prudent application of this approach requires due caution and good clinical practice. Inattention to potential risks and problematic practices can lead to harmful and unethical practice which may undermine the credibility and reputation of responsible clinicians and institutions as well as the discipline of palliative medicine more generally. Procedural guidelines are helpful to educate medical providers, set standards for best practice, promote optimal care and convey the important message to staff, patients and families that palliative sedation is an accepted, ethical practice when used in appropriate situations. EAPC aims to facilitate the development of such guidelines by presenting a 10-point framework that is based on the pre-existing guidelines and literature and extensive peer review.

Palliative Sedation Therapy in the Last Weeks of Life: A Literature Review and Recommendations for Standards

PURPOSE

Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is a controversial issue. There is a need for internationally accepted definitions and standards.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by an international panel of 29 palliative care experts. Draft papers were written on various topics concerning PST. This paper is a summary of the individual papers, written after two meetings and extensive e-mail discussions.

RESULTS

PST is defined as the use of specific sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness, using appropriate drugs carefully titrated to the cessation of symptoms. The initial dose of sedatives should usually be small enough to maintain the patients' ability to communicate periodically. The team looking after the patient should have enough expertise and experience to judge the symptom as refractory. Advice from palliative care specialists is strongly recommended before initiating PST. In the case of continuous and deep PST, the disease should be irreversible and advanced, with death expected within hours to days. Midazolam should be considered first-line choice. The decision whether or not to withhold or withdraw hydration should be discussed separately. Hydration should be offered only if it is considered likely that the benefit will outweigh the harm. PST is distinct from euthanasia because (1) it has the intent to provide symptom relief, (2) it is a proportionate intervention, and (3) the death of the patient is not a criterion for success. PST and its outcome should be carefully monitored and documented.

CONCLUSION

When other treatments fail to relieve suffering in the imminently dying patient, PST is a valid palliative care option.

Ethical validity of palliative sedation therapy: a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted on specialized palliative care units in Japan

Although palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients to achieve acceptable symptom relief, empirical data supporting the ethical validity of this approach are lacking. The primary aim of this study was to systematically investigate whether empirical evidence supports the ethical validity of sedation. This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study, which was conducted by 21 specialized palliative care units in Japan. One-hundred two consecutive adult cancer patients who received continuous deep sedation were enrolled. Continuous deep sedation was defined as the continuous use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable and refractory distress by achieving almost or complete unconsciousness until death. Prior to the study, we conceptualized the ethical validity of sedation from the viewpoints of physicians' intent, proportionality, and autonomy. Sedation was performed mainly with midazolam and phenobarbital. The initial doses of midazolam and phenobarbital were 1.5 mg/hour and 20 mg/hour, respectively. Main administration routes were continuous subcutaneous infusion and continuous intravenous infusion, and no rapid intravenous injection was reported. Of 59 patients who received artificial hydration or could intake adequate fluids/foods orally before sedation, 63% received artificial hydration therapy after sedation, and in the remaining patients, artificial hydration was withheld or withdrawn due to fluid retention symptoms and/or patient wishes. Of 66 patients who were able to verbally express themselves, 95% explicitly stated that symptoms were intolerable. The etiologies of the symptoms requiring sedation were primarily related to the progression of the underlying malignancy, such as cancer cachexia and organ failure, and standard palliative treatments had failed: steroids in 68% of patients with fatigue, opioids in 95% of patients with dyspnea, antisecretion medications in 75% of patients with bronchial secretion, antipsychotic medications in 74% of patients with delirium, and opioids in all patients with pain. On the basis of the Palliative Prognostic Index, 94% of the patients were predicted to die within 3 weeks. Before sedation, 67% of the patients expressed explicit wishes for sedation. In the remaining 34 patients, previous wishes for sedation were noted in 4 patients, and in the other 30 patients, the families were involved in the decision-making process. The chief reason for patient non-involvement in the decision making was cognitive impairment. These data indicate that palliative sedation therapy performed in specialized palliative care units in Japan generally followed the principles of double effect, proportionality, and autonomy.