The practice of palliative sedation in the Netherlands after the launch of the national guideline

Palliative sedation is a medical intervention aimed at relieving intractable suff ering by inducing decreased awareness of symptoms. It is typically considered a palliative option for patients suff ering unbearably in the last days of life. The estimated frequency of palliative sedation varies considerably in scientifi c literature, partly due to diff erences in defi nition and research setting and diff erences in terminology. Whereas in the English medical scientifi c literature the fi rst descriptions of palliative sedation referred to ‘terminal sedation’, in Dutch medical literature palliative sedation was fi rst described as ‘deep sedation in the dying phase’. Although terminology still varies – e.g. continuous deep sedation6, continuous sedation until death, continuous deep sedation until death, continuous sedation at the end of life, palliative sedation at the end of life, palliative sedation therapy, palliative sedation to unconsciousness, terminal sedation, continuous palliative sedation – the most frequently used general term for this treatment in the literature nowadays is palliative sedation

Broadening the Berlin definition of ARDS to patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen:an observational study in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly used in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. It is uncertain whether a broadened Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in which ARDS can be diagnosed in patients who are not receiving ventilation, results in similar groups of patients receiving HFNO as in patients receiving ventilation.METHODS: We applied a broadened definition of ARDS in a multicenter, observational study in adult critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), wherein the requirement for a minimal level of 5 cm H2O PEEP with ventilation is replaced by a minimal level of airflow rate with HFNO, and compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between patients receiving HFNO and patients receiving ventilation. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. We also compared outcomes in risk for death groups using the PaO2/FiO2 cutoffs as used successfully in the original definition of ARDS. Secondary endpoints were hospital mortality; mortality on days 28 and 90; need for ventilation within 7 days in patients that started with HFNO; the number of days free from HFNO or ventilation; and ICU and hospital length of stay.RESULTS: Of 728 included patients, 229 patients started with HFNO and 499 patients with ventilation. All patients fulfilled the broadened Berlin definition of ARDS. Patients receiving HFNO had lower disease severity scores and lower PaO2/FiO2 than patients receiving ventilation. ICU mortality was lower in receiving HFNO (22.7 vs 35.6%; p = 0.001). Using PaO2/FiO2 cutoffs for mild, moderate and severe arterial hypoxemia created groups with an ICU mortality of 16.7%, 22.0%, and 23.5% (p = 0.906) versus 19.1%, 37.9% and 41.4% (p = 0.002), in patients receiving HFNO versus patients receiving ventilation, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Using a broadened definition of ARDS may facilitate an earlier diagnosis of ARDS in patients receiving HFNO; however, ARDS patients receiving HFNO and ARDS patients receiving ventilation have distinct baseline characteristics and mortality rates.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04719182).</p

Pressure during decision making of continuous sedation in end-of-life situations in Dutch general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about pressure from patients or relatives on physician’s decision making of continuous palliative sedation. We aim to describe experienced pressure by general practitioners (GPs) in cases of continuous sedation after the introduction of the Dutch practice guideline, using a questionnaire survey.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A sample of 918 Dutch GPs were invited to fill out a questionnaire about their last patient under continuous sedation. Cases in which GPs experienced pressure from the patient, relatives or other persons were compared to those without pressure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>399 of 918 invite GPs (43%) returned the questionnaire and 250 provided detailed information about their most recent case of continuous sedation. Forty-one GPs (16%) indicated to have experienced pressure from the patient, relatives or colleagues. In GPs younger than 50, guideline knowledge was not related to experienced pressure, whereas in older GPs, 15% with and 36% without guideline knowledge reported pressure. GPs experienced pressure more often when patients had psychological symptoms (compared to physical symptoms only) and when patients had a longer estimated life expectancy. A euthanasia request of the patient coincided with a higher prevalence of pressure for GPs without, but not for GPs with previous experience with euthanasia. GPs who experienced pressure had consulted a palliative consultation team more often than GPs who did not experience pressure.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>One in six GPs felt pressure from patients or relatives to start sedation. This pressure was related to guideline knowledge, especially in older GPs, longer life expectancy and the presence of a euthanasia request, especially for GPs without previous experience of euthanasia.</p

A cluster randomized controlled trial on the effects and costs of advance care planning in elderly care: Study protocol

Background: Currently, health care and medical decision-making at the end of life for older people are often insufficiently patient-centred. In this trial we study the effects of Advance Care Planning (ACP), a formalised process of timely communication about care preferences at the end of life, for frail older people. Methods/Design: We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial among older people residing in care homes or receiving home care in the Netherlands. The intervention group will receive the ACP program Respecting Choices® in addition to usual care. The control group will receive usual care only. Participants in both groups will fill out questionnaires at baseline and after 12 months. We hypothesize that ACP will lead to better patient activation in medical decision making and quality of life, while reducing the number of medical interventions and thus health care costs. Multivariate analysis will be used to compare differences between the intervention group and the control group at baseline and to compare differences in changes after 12 months following the inclusion. Discussion: Our study can contribute to more understanding of the effects of ACP on patient activation and quality of life in frail older people. Further, we will gain insight in the costs and cost-effectiveness of ACP. This study will facilitate ACP policy for older people in the Netherlands. Trial registration: Nederlands Trial Register: NTR4454