PURPOSE: Palliative sedation (PS) has been defined as the use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness. It is sometimes necessary in end-of-life care when patients present refractory symptoms. We investigated PS for refractory symptoms in different hospice casemixes in order to (1) assess clinical decision-making, (2) monitor the practice of PS, and (3) examine the impact of PS on survival. METHODS: This observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted over a period of 9 months on 327 patients consecutively admitted to two 11-bed Italian hospices (A and B) with different casemixes in terms of median patient age (hospice A, 66 years vs. hospice B, 73 years; P = 0.005), mean duration of hospice stay (hospice A, 13.5 days vs. hospice B, 18.3 days; P = 0.005), and death rate (hospice A, 57.2% vs. hospice B, 89.9%; P < 0.0001). PS was monitored using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Sedated patients constituted 22% of the total admissions and 31.9% of deceased patients, which did not prove to be significantly different in the two hospices after adjustment for casemix. RESULTS: Patient involvement in clinical decision-making about sedation was significantly higher in hospice B (59.3% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.007). Family involvement was 100% in both hospices. The maximum level of sedation (RASS, -5) was necessary in only 58.3% of sedated patients. Average duration of sedation was similar in the two hospices (32.2 h [range, 2.5-253.0]). Overall survival in sedated and nonsedated patients was superimposable, with a trend in favor of sedated patients. CONCLUSIONS: PS represents a highly reproducible clinical intervention with its own indications, assessment methodologies, procedures, and results. It does not have a detrimental effect on survival.
PURPOSE: Palliative sedation (PS) has been defined as the use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness. It is sometimes necessary in end-of-life care when patients present refractory symptoms. We investigated PS for refractory symptoms in different hospice casemixes in order to (1) assess clinical decision-making, (2) monitor the practice of PS, and (3) examine the impact of PS on survival. METHODS: This observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted over a period of 9 months on 327 patients consecutively admitted to two 11-bed Italian hospices (A and B) with different casemixes in terms of median patient age (hospice A, 66 years vs. hospice B, 73 years; P = 0.005), mean duration of hospice stay (hospice A, 13.5 days vs. hospice B, 18.3 days; P = 0.005), and death rate (hospice A, 57.2% vs. hospice B, 89.9%; P < 0.0001). PS was monitored using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Sedated patients constituted 22% of the total admissions and 31.9% of deceased patients, which did not prove to be significantly different in the two hospices after adjustment for casemix. RESULTS:Patient involvement in clinical decision-making about sedation was significantly higher in hospice B (59.3% vs. 24.4%; P = 0.007). Family involvement was 100% in both hospices. The maximum level of sedation (RASS, -5) was necessary in only 58.3% of sedated patients. Average duration of sedation was similar in the two hospices (32.2 h [range, 2.5-253.0]). Overall survival in sedated and nonsedated patients was superimposable, with a trend in favor of sedated patients. CONCLUSIONS: PS represents a highly reproducible clinical intervention with its own indications, assessment methodologies, procedures, and results. It does not have a detrimental effect on survival.
Authors: M Maltoni; C Pittureri; E Scarpi; L Piccinini; F Martini; P Turci; L Montanari; O Nanni; D Amadori Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C Peruselli; P Di Giulio; F Toscani; M Gallucci; C Brunelli; M Costantini; M Tamburini; E Paci; G Miccinesi; J M Addington-Hall; I J Higginson Journal: Palliat Med Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Silvia van Dooren; Hetty T M van Veluw; Lia van Zuylen; Judith A C Rietjens; Jan Passchier; Carin C D van der Rijt Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Agnes van der Heide; Luc Deliens; Karin Faisst; Tore Nilstun; Michael Norup; Eugenio Paci; Gerrit van der Wal; Paul J van der Maas Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-08-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philipp R Klosa; Carsten Klein; Maria Heckel; Alexandra C Bronnhuber; Christoph Ostgathe; Stephanie Stiel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Santiago Parra Palacio; Clara Elisa Giraldo Hoyos; Camilo Arias Rodríguez; Daniel Mejía Arrieta; John Jairo Vargas Gómez; Alicia Krikorian Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shirley H Bush; Pamela A Grassau; Michelle N Yarmo; Tinghua Zhang; Samantha J Zinkie; José L Pereira Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Winne Ko; Luc Deliens; Guido Miccinesi; Francesco Giusti; Sarah Moreels; Gé A Donker; Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Oscar Zurriaga; Aurora López-Maside; Lieve Van den Block Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Vincent Gamblin; Vincent Berry; Emmanuelle Tresch-Bruneel; Michel Reich; Arlette Da Silva; Stéphanie Villet; Nicolas Penel; Chloé Prod'Homme Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 3.234