RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Deep palliative sedation (DPS) is applied as a response to refractory suffering at the end of life when symptoms cannot be relieved in an awake state. DPS entails a dilemma of whether to provide uninterrupted sedation-in which case DPS would turn into deep and continuous palliative sedation (DCPS) -to minimise the risk that any further intolerable suffering will occur or whether to pause sedation to avoid unnecessary sedation. DPS is problematic in that it leaves the patient 'socially dead' by eradicating their autonomy and conscious experiences. AIM: To perform a normative ethical analysis of whether guidelines should recommend attempting to elevate consciousness during DPS. DESIGN: A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and consideration of stakeholders' interests. RESULTS: When DPS is initiated it reflects that symptom relief is valued above the patient's ability to exercise autonomy and experience social interaction. However, if a decrease in symptom burden occurs, waking could be performed without patients experiencing suffering. Such pausing of deep sedation would satisfy the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Certain patients require substantial dose increases to maintain sedation. Waking such patients risks causing distressing symptoms. This does not happen if deep sedation is kept uninterrupted. Thus, the principle of non-maleficence points towards not pausing sedation. The authors' clinical ethics analysis demonstrates why other stakeholders' interests do not appear to override arguments in favour of providing uninterrupted sedation. CONCLUSION: Stopping or pausing DPS should always be considered, but should not be routinely attempted.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The anesthetic propofol is often mentioned as a drug that can be used in palliative sedation. The existing literature of how to use propofol in palliative sedation is scarce, with lack of information about how propofol could be initiated for palliative sedation, doses and treatment outcomes. AIM: To describe the patient population, previous and concomitant medication, and clinical outcome when propofol was used for palliative sedation. METHODS: A retrospective study with quantitative and qualitative data. All patients who during a 4.5-year period received propofol for palliative sedation at the Department of palliative medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Norway were included. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included. In six patients the main indication for palliative sedation was pain, in seven dyspnoea and in one delirium. In eight of these cases propofol was chosen because of the pharmacokinetic properties (rapid effect), and in the remaining cases propofol was chosen because midazolam in spite of dose titration failed to provide sufficient symptom relief. In all patients sedation and adequate symptom control was achieved during manual dose titration. During the maintenance phase three of 14 patients had spontaneous awakenings. At death, propofol doses ranged from 60 to 340 mg/hour. CONCLUSIONS: Severe suffering at the end of life can be successfully treated with propofol for palliative sedation. This can be performed in palliative medicine wards, but skilled observation and dose titration throughout the period of palliative sedation is necessary. Successful initial sedation does not guarantee uninterrupted sedation until death. EDITORIAL COMMENT: In palliative care, some patients at the end of life can reach a stage where there have been maximal analgesic and or anxiolytic treatments though without achieving comfort in the awake state. This report describes and discusses use of propofol in these infrequent cases to relieve suffering as part of palliative care.
