Pain management during the withholding and withdrawal of life support in critically ill patients at the end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To review and summarize the most frequent medications and dosages used during withholding and withdrawal of life-prolonging measures in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Virtual Health Library from inception through March 2019. We considered any study evaluating pharmaceutical interventions for pain management during the withholding or withdrawing of life support in adult critically ill patients at the end-of-life. Two independent investigators performed the screening and data extraction. We pooled data on utilization rate of analgesic and sedative drugs and summarized the dosing between the moment prior to withholding or withdrawal of life support and the moment before death. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States (38%), Canada (31%), and the Netherlands (31%). Eleven studies were single-cohort and twelve had a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of less than 7. The mean age of the patients ranged from 59 to 71 years, 59-100% were mechanically ventilated, and 47-100% of the patients underwent life support withdrawal. The most commonly used opioid and sedative were morphine [utilization rate 60% (95% CI 48-71%)] and midazolam [utilization rate 28% (95% CI 23-32%)], respectively. Doses increased during the end-of-life process (pooled mean increase in the dose of morphine: 2.6 mg/h, 95% CI 1.2-4). CONCLUSIONS: Pain control is centered on opioids and adjunctive benzodiazepines, with dosages exceeding those recommended by guidelines. Despite consistency among guidelines, there is significant heterogeneity among practices in end-of-life care.

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements About Pain Management in Critically Ill End-of-Life Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize available recommendations from scientific societies and experts on pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Biblioteca Virtual en Salud from their inception until March 28, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included all clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and benchmarks for quality. DATA EXTRACTION: Study selection, methodological quality, and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators. A quality assessment was performed by four investigators using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. The recommendations were then synthesized and categorized. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten publications were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II statement showed low scores in various quality domains, especially in the applicability and rigor of development. Most documents were in agreement on five topics: 1) using a quantitative tool for pain assessment; 2) administering narcotics for pain relief and benzodiazepines for anxiety relief; 3) against prescribing neuromuscular blockers during withdrawal of life support to assess pain; 4) endorsing the use of high doses of opioids and sedatives for pain control, regardless of the risk that they will hasten death; and 5) using quality indicators to improve pain management during end-of-life in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the lack of high-quality evidence, recommendations for pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU are homogeneous and are justified by ethical principles and agreement among experts. Considering the growing demand for the involvement of palliative care teams in the management of the dying patients in the ICU, there is a need to clearly define their early involvement and to further develop comprehensive evidence-based pain management strategies. Based on the study findings, we propose a management algorithm to improve the overall care of dying critically ill patients.

Novel model of direct and indirect cost-benefit analysis of mechanical embolectomy over IV tPA for large vessel occlusions: a real-world dollar analysis based on improvements in mRS.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic strokes result in significant healthcare expenditures (direct costs) and loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (indirect costs). Interventional therapy has demonstrated improved functional outcomes in patients with large vessel occlusions (LVOs), which are likely to reduce the economic burden of strokes. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel real-world dollar model to assess the direct and indirect cost-benefit of mechanical embolectomy compared with medical treatment with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV tPA) based on shifts in modified Rankin scores (mRS). METHOD: A cost model was developed including multiple parameters to account for both direct and indirect stroke costs. These were adjusted based upon functional outcome (mRS). The model compared IV tPA with mechanical embolectomy to assess the costs and benefits of both therapies. Direct stroke-related costs included hospitalization, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, home care, skilled nursing facilities, and long-term care facility costs. Indirect costs included years of life expectancy lost and lost QALYs. Values for the model cost parameters were derived from numerous resources and functional outcomes were derived from the MR CLEAN study as a reflective sample of LVOs. Direct and indirect costs and benefits for the two treatments were assessed using Microsoft Excel 2013. RESULTS: This cost-benefit model found a cost-benefit of mechanical embolectomy over IV tPA of $163 624.27 per patient and the cost benefit for 50 000 patients on an annual basis is $8 181 213 653.77. CONCLUSIONS: If applied widely within the USA, mechanical embolectomy will significantly reduce the direct and indirect financial burden of stroke ($8 billion/50 000 patients).