Managing Profound Suffering at the End-of-Life: Should expanding access to continuous deep sedation be the priority?

Commentaire / Commentary

Optimization of analytical methods for the assessment of the quality of fats and oils used in continuous deep fat frying

La aplicabilidad, repetibilidad y capacidad de diferentes métodos de análisis para discriminar muestras de aceites con diferentes grados de oxidación fueron evaluadas mediante aceites recogidos en procesos de fritura en continuo en varias empresas españolas. El objetivo de este trabajo fue encontrar métodos complementarios a la determinación del índice de acidez para el control de calidad rutinario de los aceites de fritura empleados en estas empresas. La optimización de la determinación de la constante dieléctrica conllevó una clara mejora de la variabilidad. No obstante, excepto en el caso del índice del ATB, el resto de métodos ensayados mostraron una menor variabilidad. La determinación del índice del ATB fue descartada ya que su sensibilidad fue insuficiente para discriminar entre aceites con diferente grado de oxidación. Los diferentes parámetros de alteración determinados en los aceites de fritura mostraron correlaciones significativas entre el índice de acidez y varios parámetros de oxidación diferentes, como la constante dieléctrica, el índice de p-anisidina, la absorción al ultravioleta y el contenido en polímeros de los triacilgliceroles. El índice de acidez solo evalúa la alteración hidrolítica, por lo que estos parámetros aportan información complementaria al evaluar la alteración termooxidativa.

Ultra-rapid opiate detoxification using deep sedation and prior oral buprenorphine preparation: long-term results.

BACKGROUND: New methods of ultra-rapid opiate detoxification (URD) under intravenous sedation have been criticized because of limited data on safety and long-term follow-up. Premedication with buprenorphine has been advocated to improve safety by decreasing vomiting. Prior research has not explored URD in socially impaired patients. METHOD: Sixteen patients were detoxified with URD and prospectively evaluated over at least 30 months. Data of this procedure were compared with those of our previous study without buprenorphine preparation (Drug Alcohol Depend. 52(3) (1998) 243). The 16 patients were followed up by a general practitioner (GP) before and after URD. The GPs also supervised the 7-day course of buprenorphine treatment prescribed for the 16 patients prior to URD. RESULTS: During the procedure, only one episode of vomiting occurred instead of 13 out of 20 in our previous study. Post-procedure, only two patients experienced moderate withdrawal symptoms, such as persistent nausea, abdominal cramps and vomiting lasting from 24 to 48 h, in comparison with most patients in the previous study without buprenorphine. After a period of at least 30 months (36.0+/-6.38), the 16 patients were still alive and were regularly monitored by their GP. Only two of the 16 never relapsed after URD and reported total opiate abstinence. Fourteen patients relapsed; 12 of these were prescribed a licensed methadone substitution program and two were still using heroin. CONCLUSION: In this small sample, the data indicated that URD with buprenorphine preparation was safe and that it markedly decreased post-procedure morbidity. No patient died over a minimum 30-month follow-up period. Furthermore, the procedure was employed with socially impaired patients. In the long term, a few patients were still free of opiates, while the majority opted for a methadone maintenance program, showing that URD can serve as one possible step in a long-term treatment program.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective study.

The objective of this study is to determine if quality of care, symptoms of depression, disease characteristics and quality of life of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are related to requesting euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) and dying due to EAS. Therefore, 102 ALS patients filled out structured questionnaires every 3 months until death and the results were correlated with EAS. Thirty-one percent of the patients requested EAS, 69 % of whom eventually died as a result of EAS (22 % of all patients). Ten percent died during continuous deep sedation; only one of them had explicitly requested death to be hastened. Of the patients who requested EAS, 86 % considered the health care to be good or excellent, 16 % felt depressed, 45 % experienced loss of dignity and 42 % feared choking. These percentages do not differ from the number of patients who did not explicitly request EAS. The frequency of consultations of professional caregivers and availability of appliances was similar in both groups. Our findings do not support continuous deep sedation being used as a substitute for EAS. In this prospective study, no evidence was found for a relation between EAS and the quality and quantity of care received, quality of life and symptoms of depression in patients with ALS. Our study does not support the notion that unmet palliative care needs are related to EAS.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

The use of palliative sedation: A comparison of attitudes of French-speaking physicians from Quebec and Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: Previous literature has suggested that laws and regulations may impact the use of palliative sedation. Our present study compares the attitudes of French-speaking physicians practicing in the Quebec and Swiss environments, where different laws are in place regarding physician-assisted suicide. METHOD: Data were drawn from two prior studies, one by Blondeau and colleagues and another by Beauverd and coworkers, employing the same two-by-two experimental design with length of prognosis and type of suffering as independent variables. Both the effect of these variables and the effect of their interaction on Swiss and Quebec physicians' attitudes toward sedation were compared. The written comments of respondents were submitted to a qualitative content analysis and summarized in a comparative perspective. RESULTS: The analysis of variance showed that only the type of suffering had an effect on physicians' attitudes toward sedation. The results of the Wilcoxon test indicated that the attitudes of physicians from Quebec and Switzerland tended to be different for two vignettes: long-term prognosis with existential suffering (p = 0.0577) and short-term prognosis with physical suffering (p = 0.0914). In both cases, the Swiss physicians were less prone to palliative sedation. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The attitudes of physicians from Quebec and Switzerland toward palliative sedation, particularly regarding prognosis and type of suffering, seem similar. However, the results suggest that physicians from Quebec could be slightly more open to palliative sedation, even though most were not in favor of this practice as an answer to end-of-life existential suffering.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

The effects of dexmedetomidine/remifentanil and midazolam/remifentanil on auditory-evoked potentials and electroencephalogram at light-to-moderate sedation levels in healthy subjects

Avoidance of excessively deep sedation levels is problematic in intensive care patients. Electrophysiologic monitoring may offer an approach to solving this problem. Since electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to different sedation regimens vary, we assessed electrophysiologic responses to two sedative drug regimens in 10 healthy volunteers. Dexmedetomidine/remifentanil (dex/remi group) and midazolam/remifentanil (mida/remi group) were infused 7 days apart. Each combination of medications was given at stepwise intervals to reach Ramsay scores (RS) 2, 3, and 4. Resting EEG, bispectral index (BIS), and the N100 amplitudes of long-latency auditory-evoked potentials (ERP) were recorded at each level of sedation. During dex/remi, resting EEG was characterized by a recurrent high-power low-frequency pattern which became more pronounced at deeper levels of sedation. BIS Index decreased uniformly in only the dex/remi group (from 94 +/- 3 at baseline to 58 +/- 14 at RS 4) compared to the mida/remi group (from 94 +/- 2 to 76 +/- 10; P = 0.029 between groups). The ERP amplitudes decreased from 5.3 +/- 1.3 at baseline to 0.4 +/- 1.1 at RS 4 (P = 0.003) in only the mida/remi group. We conclude that ERPs in volunteers sedated with dex/remi, in contrast to mida/remi, indicate a cortical response to acoustic stimuli, even when sedation reaches deeper levels. Consequently, ERP can monitor sedation with midazolam but not with dexmedetomidine. The reverse is true for BIS.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation

PURPOSE: To compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) with standard care (SC, either propofol or midazolam) for long-term sedation in terms of maintaining target sedation and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS: A pilot, phase III, double-blind multicenter study in randomized medical and surgical patients (n = 85) within the first 72 h of ICU stay with an expected ICU stay of >or=48 h and sedation need for >or=24 h after randomization. Patients were assigned to either DEX (sedation stops. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of DEX versus SC was not confirmed. Target Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) was reached a median of 64% (DEX) and 63% (SC) of the sedation time (ns). The length of ICU stay was similar in DEX and SC. Patients with RASS target 0-3 (DEX 78%, SC 80%) were at target sedation 74% (DEX) and 64% (SC) of the time (ns), whereas those with RASS target -4 or less reached the target 42% (DEX) and 62% (SC) of the time (P = .006). Post hoc analyses suggested shorter duration of mechanical ventilation for DEX (P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that in long-term sedation, DEX is comparable to SC in maintaining sedation targets of RASS 0 to -3 but not suitable for deep sedation (RASS -4 or less). DEX had no effect on length of ICU stay. Its effects on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as duration of mechanical ventilation, should be tested further.

Auditory event-related potentials, bispectral index, and entropy for the discrimination of different levels of sedation in intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND: Sedation protocols, including the use of sedation scales and regular sedation stops, help to reduce the length of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. Because clinical assessment of depth of sedation is labor-intensive, performed only intermittently, and interferes with sedation and sleep, processed electrophysiological signals from the brain have gained interest as surrogates. We hypothesized that auditory event-related potentials (ERPs), Bispectral Index (BIS), and Entropy can discriminate among clinically relevant sedation levels. METHODS: We studied 10 patients after elective thoracic or abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. Electroencephalogram, BIS, state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and ERPs were recorded immediately after surgery in the intensive care unit at Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores of -5 (very deep sedation), -4 (deep sedation), -3 to -1 (moderate sedation), and 0 (awake) during decreasing target-controlled sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Reference measurements for baseline levels were performed before or several days after the operation. RESULTS: At baseline, RASS -5, RASS -4, RASS -3 to -1, and RASS 0, BIS was 94 [4] (median, IQR), 47 [15], 68 [9], 75 [10], and 88 [6]; SE was 87 [3], 46 [10], 60 [22], 74 [21], and 87 [5]; and RE was 97 [4], 48 [9], 71 [25], 81 [18], and 96 [3], respectively (all P < 0.05, Friedman Test). Both BIS and Entropy had high variabilities. When ERP N100 amplitudes were considered alone, ERPs did not differ significantly among sedation levels. Nevertheless, discriminant ERP analysis including two parameters of principal component analysis revealed a prediction probability PK value of 0.89 for differentiating deep sedation, moderate sedation, and awake state. The corresponding PK for RE, SE, and BIS was 0.88, 0.89, and 0.85, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither ERPs nor BIS or Entropy can replace clinical sedation assessment with standard scoring systems. Discrimination among very deep, deep to moderate, and no sedation after general anesthesia can be provided by ERPs and processed electroencephalograms, with similar P(K)s. The high inter- and intraindividual variability of Entropy and BIS precludes defining a target range of values to predict the sedation level in critically ill patients using these parameters. The variability of ERPs is unknown.

Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study

Background: There are limited data concerning endoscopist-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice. Patients and methods: Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation. Results: One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation. Conclusions: Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation.

Cardiovascular response during trigeminal ganglion compression for trigeminal neuralgia according to the use of local anesthetics

There are controversies about the use of local anesthetics during balloon compression for trigeminal neuralgia (TN) as a protective factor for cardiovascular events. The objective of this study was to investigate cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure and heart rate [HR]) of patients that underwent trigeminal balloon compression with local anesthetics compared to a control group (placebo). This is a randomized controlled study; 55 patients were randomized into two groups: study (deep sedation and trigeminal block with 0.8-mL lidocaine 2%) and control group (deep sedation and trigeminal injection of 0.8-mL saline). Blood pressure and HR were measured in five distinct moments: preoperative, during puncture for local anesthesia/placebo, during puncture with the catheter, during balloon compression, and final evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed with Pearson`s chi (2) and McNemar tests and the analysis of variance for repetitive measures. The means of systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) were higher in the control group when compared to the study group at the evaluation during puncture with the catheter (p < 0.001) and balloon compression (p < 0.001 and p = 0.018 for DBP and SBP, respectively). There was an increase in the HR in the control group during the procedure (p = 0.017). The use of local anesthetics during the trigeminal balloon compression for TN can have a preventive role for the risk of cardiovascular events.

Sedación paliativa y sedación terminal : orientaciones para la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica : documentos de apoyo

Publicado en la página web de la Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social: www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud (Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social/ Profesionales / Nuestro Compromiso por la Calidad / Documento de Apoyo al Proceso Asistencial. Sedación Paliativa, Sedación Terminal)

Protocolo para el seguimiento del tratamiento farmacológico individualizado en pacientes con sedación paliativa

Publicado en la página web de la Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social / Profesionales / Nuestro Compromiso por la Calidad / Estrategia de cuidados de Andalucía / Estrategia de cuidados de Andalucía