Review of European Guidelines on Palliative Sedation: A Foundation for the Updating of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework

How should respiratory depression and loss of airway patency be handled during initiation of palliative sedation?

BACKGROUND

Loss of airway patency has been reported during initiation of palliative sedation. In present guidelines the loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation is not addressed. Airway patency can be restored by jaw thrust/chin lift or placing the patient in the recovery position.

AIM

A structured ethical analysis of how respiratory depression and loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation should be handled. The essence of the dilemma is whether it is appropriate to apply simple non-invasive methods to restore airway patency in order to avoid the patient's immediate death.

DESIGN

A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and stakeholders' interests.

RESULTS

Beneficence and autonomy support a decision not to regain airway patency whereas non-maleficence lends weight to a decision to restore airway patency. Whether the proportionality criterion of the principle of double effect is met depends on the features of the individual case. The ethical problem appears to be a genuine dilemma where important values and arguments point to different conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Whether to restore airway patency when the airway is obstructed during initiation of palliative sedation will ultimately be based on clinical judgment taking into account both any known patient preferences and relevant clinical information. There are strong arguments favoring both options in this clinical and ethical dilemma. The fact that a clear and universal recommendation cannot be made does not imply indifference regarding what is the clinically and ethically best option for each individual patient.

[Comfort Terminal Care in the intensive care unit: recommendations for practice]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Working Group on Ethics in Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine of the Austrian Society for Anesthesiology Resuscitation and Intensive Care Medicine (ÖGARI) already developed documentation tools for the adaption of therapeutic goals 10 years ago. Since then the practical implementation of Comfort Terminal Care in the daily routine in particular has raised numerous questions, which are discussed in this follow-up paper and answered in an evidence-based manner whenever possible.

RESULTS

The practical implementation of pain therapy and reduction of anxiety, stress and respiratory distress that are indicated in the context of Comfort Terminal Care are described in more detail. The measures that are not (or no longer) indicated, such as oxygen administration and ventilation as well as the administration of fluids and nutrition, are also commented on. Furthermore, recommendations are given regarding monitoring, (laboratory) findings and drug treatment and the importance of nursing actions in the context of Comfort Terminal Care is mentioned. Finally, the support for the next of kin and the procedure in the time after death are presented.

DISCUSSION

A change in treatment goals with a timely switch to Comfort Terminal Care enables good and humane care for seriously ill patients and their relatives at the end of life and the appreciation of their previous life with the possibility of positive experiences until the end.

Palliative sedation - revised recommendations

Palliative sedation is defined as the monitored use of medications intended to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering in a manner ethically acceptable to the patient, their family, and healthcare providers. In Switzerland, the prevalence of continuous deep sedation until death increased from 4.7% in 2001 to 17.5% of all deceased in 2013, depending on the research method used and on regional variations. Yet, these numbers may be overestimated due to a lack of understanding of the term "continuous deep sedation" by for example respondents of the questionnaire-based study. Inadequately trained and inexperienced healthcare professionals may incorrectly or inappropriately perform palliative sedation due to uncertainties regarding its definitions and practice. Therefore, the expert members of the Bigorio group and the authors of this manuscript believe that national recommendations should be published and made available to healthcare professionals to provide practical, terminological, and ethical guidance. The Bigorio group is the working group of the Swiss Palliative Care Society whose task is to publish clinical recommendations at a national level in Switzerland. These recommendations aim to provide guidance on the most critical questions and issues related to palliative sedation. The Swiss Society of Palliative Care (palliative.ch) mandated a writing board comprising four clinical experts (three physicians and one ethicist) and two national academic experts to revise the 2005 Bigorio guidelines. A first draft was created based on a narrative literature review, which was internally reviewed by five academic institutions (Lausanne, Geneva, Bern, Zürich, and Basel) and the heads of all working groups of the Swiss Society of Palliative Care before finalising the guidelines. The following themes are discussed regarding palliative sedation: (a) definitions and clinical aspects, (b) the decision-making process, (c) communication with patients and families, (d) patient monitoring, (e) pharmacological approaches, and (f) ethical and controversial issues. Palliative sedation must be practised with clinical and ethical accuracy and competence to avoid harm and ethically questionable use. Specialist palliative care teams should be consulted before initiating palliative sedation to avoid overlooking other potential treatment options for the patient's symptoms and suffering.

Practices of and Perspectives on Palliative Sedation Among Palliative Care Physicians in Ontario, Canada: A Mixed-Methods Study

Background

Palliative sedation (PS) is a therapeutic intervention employed to manage severe and refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients at end of life. Inconsistencies in PS practice guidelines coupled with clinician ambiguity have resulted in confusion about how PS is best integrated into practice. Understanding the perspectives, experiences, and practices relating to this modality will provide insight into its clinical application and challenges within the palliative care landscape.

Objective

The aim is to explore the perspectives of palliative care physicians administering PS, including how practitioners define PS, factors influencing decision making about the use of PS, and possible reasons for changes in practice patterns over time.

Methods

A survey (n = 37) and semistructured interviews (n = 23) were conducted with palliative care physicians throughout Ontario. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by two independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated through reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Five key themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization, (2) differing definitions, (3) logistical challenges, (4) perceived "back-up" to Medical Assistance in Dying, and (5) tool of the most responsible physician.

Conclusion

There was significant variability in how participants defined PS and in frequency of use of PS. Physicians described greater ease implementing PS when practicing in palliative care units, with significant barriers faced by individuals providing home-based palliative care or working as consultants on inpatient units. Educational efforts are required about the intent and practice of PS, particularly among inpatient interprofessional teams.

Palliative sedation: ethics in clinical practice guidelines - systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study was to determine whether, and to what degree, the ethical dimension was present in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on palliative sedation, and to identify the ethical issues with respect to the different forms of this practice. The purpose was purely to be descriptive; our aim was not to make any kind of normative judgements on these ethical issues or to develop our own ethical recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of CPGs on the palliative sedation of adults, focusing our analysis on the ethical dimension of these texts and the ethical issues of this practice. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

In total, 36 current CPGs from four continents (and 14 countries) were included in our analysis. Generally, ethics was rarely referred to or absent from the CPGs. Only six texts contained a specific section explicitly related to ethics. Ethical issues were named, conceptualised and presented in heterogeneous, often confusing ways. It was impossible to identify the ethical issues of each form of palliative sedation. Ethics expertise was not involved in the development of most of the CPGs and, if it was, this did not always correlate with the ethical dimension of the document.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective cooperation between palliative care clinicians and ethicists should be encouraged, in order to integrate in particular the crucial ethical issues of continuous deep sedation until death when developing or updating CPGs on palliative sedation.

Palliative sedation: autonomy, suffering, and euthanasia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This contemporary and novel review of palliative sedation explores some of the distinctive ethical problems associated with that intervention. It is timely in light of recent reviews of palliative care guidelines on the topic and given the current public debates around the related but distinct practice of euthanasia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main themes discussed are patient autonomy, the nature of suffering and how to alleviate it, and the relationship between palliative sedation and euthanasia.

SUMMARY

First, palliative sedation poses a significant problem for patient autonomy, both in terms of securing informed consent and in terms of the ongoing effect on individual well-being. Second, as an intervention to alleviate suffering, it is appropriate only in limited cases and counterproductive in others, for example, where an individual values their ongoing psychological or social agency more than the relief of pain or negative experience. Third, people's ethical views about palliative sedation are often coloured by their understanding of the legal and moral status of assisted dying and euthanasia; this is unhelpful and occludes the interesting and urgent ethical questions raised by palliative sedation as a distinct end-of-life intervention.

Pain Management at the End of Life in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review of the Literature and a Practical Clinical Approach

Access to pain management is a fundamental human right for all people, including those who are at the end of life (EOL). In end-stage patients, severe and uncontrolled pain is a common cause of admission to the emergency department (ED), and its treatment is challenging due to its complex, often multifactorial genesis. The aim of this narrative review was to identify the available literature on the management of severe EOL pain in the ED. The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to 1 April 2023 including randomised controlled trials, observational studies, systemic or narrative reviews, case reports, and guidelines on the management of EOL pain in the ED. A total of 532 articles were identified, and 9 articles were included (5 narrative reviews, 2 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies). Included studies were heterogeneous on the scales used and recommended for pain assessment and the recommended treatments. No study provided evidence for a better approach for EOL patients with pain in the ED. We provide a narrative summary of the findings and a review of the management of EOL pain in clinical practice, including (i) the identification of the EOL patients and unmet palliative care needs, (ii) a multidimensional, patient-centred assessment of the type and severity of pain, (iii) a multidisciplinary approach to the management of end-of-life pain, including an overview of non-pharmacological and pharmacological techniques; and (iv) the management of special situations, including rapid acute deterioration of chronic pain, breakthrough pain, and sedative palliation.

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.

Sedation in Palliative Care—a Clinically Oriented Overview of Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations

BACKGROUND

The appropriate provision of sedation as a last resort for the relief of suffering in palliative care is dealt with variably in actual practice. This article is intended as an overview of practically relevant information found in treatment recommendations and guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, and a manual search was carried out online. Recommendations that were not available in either German or English, or that were specific to pediatric practice, were excluded. Publication quality was assessed with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II). The recommendations in the documents were qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

29 publications (11 journal articles, 18 other) of varying quality according to AGREE II were included. All recommendations and guidelines were essentially based on expert consensus. The common indications for sedation are otherwise intractable delirium, dyspnea, and pain, in patients with a life expectancy of no more than two weeks. Existential distress is a controversial indication. The drug of first choice is midazolam. As the sedating effect of opioids is hard to predict, they should not be used as sedatives. The risks of sedation include respiratory and circulatory depression, as well as the loss of communicative ability, control, and autonomy. It is generally recommended that the patient's symptom burden and depth of sedation should be monitored; clinical and technically supported monitoring are recommended in some publications as well, depending on the situation.

CONCLUSION

There is a broad consensus in favor of sedation to relieve suffering in the last days and hours of life. Recommendations vary for patients with a longer life expectancy and for those with existential distress, and with respect to monitoring.

Monitoring the clinical practice of palliative sedation (PALSED) in patients with advanced cancer: an international, multicentre, non-experimental prospective observational study protocol

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness at the end of life. It can be initiated to relieve a patient's burden caused by refractory symptoms at the end of life. The impact of palliative sedation needs to be clinically monitored to adjust the proper dose and regimen of sedative medication to ensure that patients are at ease and comfortable at the end of their lives. Although there is consensus among health care professionals and within guidelines that efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be closely monitored, there is no agreement about how, when, and by whom, this monitoring should be performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of palliative sedation by measuring the discomfort levels and sedation/agitation levels of the patients at regular timepoints. In addition, the clinical trajectories of those patients receiving palliative sedation will be monitored and recorded.

METHODS

The study is an international prospective non-experimental observational multicentre study. Patients are recruited from in-patient palliative care settings in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Adult patients with advanced cancer are monitored by using proxy observations of discomfort (DS-DAT) and depth of sedation/agitation levels (RASS-PAL) during palliative sedation. After the palliative sedation period, the care for the specific participant case is evaluated by one of the attending health care professionals and one relative via a questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first international prospective multicenter study evaluating the clinical practice of palliative sedation including observations of discomfort levels and levels of sedation. It will provide valuable information about the practice of palliative sedation in European countries in terminally ill cancer patients. Results from this study will facilitate the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice on how to improve monitoring and comfort in patients receiving palliative sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Clinical Practice Guidelines on Palliative Sedation Around the World: A Systematic Review

Objective: The principal aim of this study was to identify, systematically and transparently, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on palliative sedation from around the world. Methods: A systematic search was performed using 5 databases, grey literature search tools, citation tracking, and contact with palliative care experts across the world. Current CPGs accredited by an international, national, or regional authority, published in English, German, French, or Italian, were subjected to content analysis. Results: In total, 35 CPGs from 14 countries and 1 international CPG were included in the analysis. The CPGs had diverse formal characteristics. Their thematic scope was difficult to analyze and compare because of differences in the terms and definitions of palliative sedation in those texts. We identified 3 main situations: (1) CPGs with a fully explicit thematic scope; (2) CPGs with a partially explicit thematic scope; and (3) CPGs without an explicit thematic scope. Several CPGs explicitly stated what forms of sedation were excluded from the text. However, this presentation was often confusing. Conclusion: Our review provides several pieces of information that could guide international reflections in this field, and be used to develop or update CPGs at all levels. Efforts should be made to clarify the thematic scope of each CPG on palliative sedation, in order to generate an understanding of the forms of this therapy addressed in the text.