Enhancing legacy in palliative care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Dignity Therapy focused on positive outcomes.

BackgroundDignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy that can enhance a sense of legacy while addressing the emotional and existential needs of patients receiving hospice or palliative care. In Dignity Therapy, patients create a formalized "legacy" document that records their most cherished memories, their lessons learned in life, as well as their hopes and dreams for loved ones in the future. To date, this treatment has been studied for its impact on mitigating distress within hospice and palliative care populations and has provided mixed results. This study will instead focus on whether Dignity Therapy enhances positive outcomes in this population.Methods/designIn this study, 90 patients with cancer receiving hospice or palliative care will complete a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of Dignity Therapy (n = 45) versus Supportive Attention (n = 45). The patients will be enrolled in the study for 3 weeks, receiving a total of six study visits. The primary outcomes examine whether the treatment will quantitatively increase levels of positive affect and a sense of life closure. Secondary outcomes focus on gratitude, hope, life satisfaction, meaning in life, resilience, and self-efficacy. Using a fixed, embedded dataset design, this study will additionally use qualitative interviews to explore patients' perceptions regarding the use of positive outcome measures and whether these outcomes are appropriately matched to their experiences in therapy.DiscussionDignity Therapy has shown mixed results when evaluating its impact on distress, although no other study to date has solely focused on the potential positive aspects of this treatment. This study is novel in its use of mixed methods assessments to focus on positive outcomes, and will provide valuable information about patients' direct experiences in this area.Trial registrationISRCTN91389194

Enhancing legacy in palliative care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Dignity Therapy focused on positive outcomes

BACKGROUND: Dignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy that can enhance a sense of legacy while addressing the emotional and existential needs of patients receiving hospice or palliative care. In Dignity Therapy, patients create a formalized “legacy” document that records their most cherished memories, their lessons learned in life, as well as their hopes and dreams for loved ones in the future. To date, this treatment has been studied for its impact on mitigating distress within hospice and palliative care populations and has provided mixed results. This study will instead focus on whether Dignity Therapy enhances positive outcomes in this population. METHODS/DESIGN: In this study, 90 patients with cancer receiving hospice or palliative care will complete a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of Dignity Therapy (n = 45) versus Supportive Attention (n = 45). The patients will be enrolled in the study for 3 weeks, receiving a total of six study visits. The primary outcomes examine whether the treatment will quantitatively increase levels of positive affect and a sense of life closure. Secondary outcomes focus on gratitude, hope, life satisfaction, meaning in life, resilience, and self-efficacy. Using a fixed, embedded dataset design, this study will additionally use qualitative interviews to explore patients’ perceptions regarding the use of positive outcome measures and whether these outcomes are appropriately matched to their experiences in therapy. DISCUSSION: Dignity Therapy has shown mixed results when evaluating its impact on distress, although no other study to date has solely focused on the potential positive aspects of this treatment. This study is novel in its use of mixed methods assessments to focus on positive outcomes, and will provide valuable information about patients’ direct experiences in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN9138919

Enhancing legacy in palliative care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Dignity Therapy focused on positive outcomes.

BackgroundDignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy that can enhance a sense of legacy while addressing the emotional and existential needs of patients receiving hospice or palliative care. In Dignity Therapy, patients create a formalized "legacy" document that records their most cherished memories, their lessons learned in life, as well as their hopes and dreams for loved ones in the future. To date, this treatment has been studied for its impact on mitigating distress within hospice and palliative care populations and has provided mixed results. This study will instead focus on whether Dignity Therapy enhances positive outcomes in this population.Methods/designIn this study, 90 patients with cancer receiving hospice or palliative care will complete a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of Dignity Therapy (n = 45) versus Supportive Attention (n = 45). The patients will be enrolled in the study for 3 weeks, receiving a total of six study visits. The primary outcomes examine whether the treatment will quantitatively increase levels of positive affect and a sense of life closure. Secondary outcomes focus on gratitude, hope, life satisfaction, meaning in life, resilience, and self-efficacy. Using a fixed, embedded dataset design, this study will additionally use qualitative interviews to explore patients' perceptions regarding the use of positive outcome measures and whether these outcomes are appropriately matched to their experiences in therapy.DiscussionDignity Therapy has shown mixed results when evaluating its impact on distress, although no other study to date has solely focused on the potential positive aspects of this treatment. This study is novel in its use of mixed methods assessments to focus on positive outcomes, and will provide valuable information about patients' direct experiences in this area.Trial registrationISRCTN91389194

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality

Objective: With more than 220 million major surgical procedures performed annually, perioperative interventions leading to even minor mortality reductions would save thousands of lives per year. This international consensus conference aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions that increase or reduce perioperative mortality as suggested by randomized evidence. Design and Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: More than 1,000 physicians from 77 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. Interventions: Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE/PubMed, June 8, 2011) were used to identify the papers with a statistically significant effect on mortality together with contacts with experts. Interventions were considered eligible for evaluation if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) dealt with a nonsurgical intervention (drug/technique/strategy) in adult patients undergoing surgery, and (3) provided a statistically significant mortality increase or reduction as suggested by a randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials. Measurements and Main Results: Fourteen interventions that might change perioperative mortality in adult surgery were identified. Interventions that might reduce mortality include chlorhexidine oral rinse, clonidine, insulin, intra-aortic balloon pump, leukodepletion, levosimendan, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive respiratory support, hemodynamic optimization, oxygen, selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, aprotinin and extended-release metoprolol might increase mortality. Conclusions: Future research and health care funding should be directed toward studying and evaluating these interventions. © 2012 Elsevier Inc

Reducing mortality in acute kidney injury patients: systematic review and international web-based survey.

To identify all interventions that increase or reduce mortality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and to establish the agreement between stated beliefs and actual practice in this setting

Postoperative continuous positive airway pressure to prevent pneumonia, re-intubation, and death after major abdominal surgery (PRISM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BackgroundRespiratory complications are an important cause of postoperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) administered immediately after major abdominal surgery could prevent postoperative morbidity.MethodsPRISM was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 70 hospitals across six countries. Patients aged 50 years or older who were undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive CPAP within 4 h of the end of surgery or usual postoperative care. Patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm with inbuilt concealment. The primary outcome was a composite of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death within 30 days after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received CPAP. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56012545.FindingsBetween Feb 8, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, 4806 patients were randomly assigned (2405 to the CPAP group and 2401 to the usual care group), of whom 4793 were included in the primary analysis (2396 in the CPAP group and 2397 in the usual care group). 195 (8·1%) of 2396 patients in the CPAP group and 197 (8·2%) of 2397 patients in the usual care group met the composite primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·81–1·24]; p=0·95). 200 (8·9%) of 2241 patients in the CPAP group had adverse events. The most common adverse events were claustrophobia (78 [3·5%] of 2241 patients), oronasal dryness (43 [1·9%]), excessive air leak (36 [1·6%]), vomiting (26 [1·2%]), and pain (24 [1·1%]). There were two serious adverse events: one patient had significant hearing loss and one patient had obstruction of their venous catheter caused by a CPAP hood, which resulted in transient haemodynamic instability.InterpretationIn this large clinical effectiveness trial, CPAP did not reduce the incidence of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death after major abdominal surgery. Although CPAP has an important role in the treatment of respiratory failure after surgery, routine use of prophylactic post-operative CPAP is not recommended.<br/

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.)