Differences among institutions in the prevalence of and indications for urinary catheterization of advanced cancer patients at palliative care units: A multicenter prospective cohort study (EASED).

BACKGROUND: Studies on the appropriate use of urinary catheters for cancer patients at the end of life are limited. AIM: To clarify the differences among institutions in the prevalence of and indications for urinary catheterization of advanced cancer patients at palliative care units. DESIGN: Pre-planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study; East-Asian collaborative cross-cultural Study to Elucidate the Dying process (EASED). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This study enrolled consecutive advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units between January and December 2017. The final study group comprised 1212 patients from 21 institutions throughout Japan. RESULTS: Out of the 1212 patients, 380 (31.4%; 95% confidence interval, 28.7%-34.0%) underwent urinary catheterization during their palliative care unit stay, and the prevalence of urinary catheterization in patients who died at palliative care units by institution ranged from 0.0% to 55.4%. When the 21 participating institutions were equally divided into three groups according to the institutional prevalence of catheterization, patients with difficulty in moving safely, exhaustion on movement, and restlessness or agitation were more likely to be catheterized in institutions with a high prevalence of catheterization than in those with a low or moderate prevalence (p < 0.008, p = 0.008, and p < 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the institutional prevalence of urinary catheterization in advanced cancer patients at palliative care units widely varied. Further studies are needed to establish the appropriate use of urinary catheters, especially in patients with difficulty in moving safely, exhaustion on movement, and restlessness or agitation.

Predictive Factors for the Development of Dyspnea Within 7 Days After Admission Among Terminally Ill Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Predictive factors for the development of dyspnea have not been reported among terminally ill cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: This current study aimed to identify the predictive factors attributed to the development of dyspnea within 7 days after admission among patients with cancer. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study on the dying process among patients admitted in inpatient hospices/palliative care units. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who developed dyspnea (development group) and those who did not (non-development group). To determine independent predictive factors, univariate and multivariate analyses using the logistic regression model were performed. RESULTS: From January 2017 to December 2017, 1159 patients were included in this analysis. Univariate analysis showed that male participants, those with primary lung cancer, ascites, and Karnofsky Performance Status score (KPS) of ≤40, smokers, and benzodiazepine users were significantly higher in the development group. Multivariate analysis revealed that primary lung cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 2.80, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.47-5.31; p = 0.002), KPS score (≤40) (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.02-3.31; p = 0.044), and presence of ascites (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.36-4.02; p = 0.002) were independent predictive factors for the development of dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer, poor performance status, and ascites may be predictive factors for the development of dyspnea among terminally ill cancer patients. However, further studies should be performed to validate these findings.

Does Urinary Catheterization Affect the Quality of Death in Patients with Advanced Cancer? A Secondary Analysis of a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Patients with life-limiting illnesses frequently experience urinary difficulties, and urinary catheterization is one of the interventions for managing them. However, evidence supporting the effects of urinary catheters on the quality of death (QoD) is lacking in this population. Objectives: To investigate whether urinary catheterization affects QoD in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care units. Design: A secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: The study enrolled consecutive patients with advanced cancer admitted to palliative care units in Japan between January and December 2017. Those who were not catheterized on admission and who died while in a palliative care unit were analyzed. Measurements: QoD was evaluated at death using the Good Death Scale (GDS). Results: Of 885 patients, 297 (33.6%) were catheterized during their palliative care unit stay. Females and patients with a long palliative care unit stay were more likely to be catheterized. In inverse probability-weighted propensity score analysis, patients with urinary catheterization during their palliative care unit stay had higher total GDS scores than those without catheterization (coefficient 0.410, 95% confidence interval 0.068-0.752). In subgroup analyses stratified by sex, age, and length of palliative care unit stay, urinary catheterization was associated with higher total GDS scores in patients younger than 65 years of age and those who died after a palliative care unit stay of 21 days or fewer. Conclusions: This study suggested that urinary catheterization during a palliative care unit stay may have a positive impact on overall QoD in patients with advanced cancer. This study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000025457).

Efficacy of Proportional Sedation and Deep Sedation Defined by Sedation Protocols: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of two types of palliative sedation: proportional and deep sedation, defined by sedation protocols. METHODS: From a multicenter prospective observational study, we analyzed the data of those patients who received the continuous infusion of midazolam according to the sedation protocol. The primary endpoint was goal achievement at 4 hours: in proportional sedation, symptom relief (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale: IPOS ≤ 1) and absence of agitation (modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: RASS ≤ 0); in deep sedation, the achievement of deep sedation (RASS ≤ -4). Secondary endpoints included deep sedation as a result of proportional sedation, communication capacity (Communication Capacity Scale item 4 ≤ 2), IPOS and RASS scores, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients from 14 palliative care units were analyzed: proportional sedation (n = 64) and deep sedation (n = 17). At 4 hours, the goal was achieved in 77% (n = 49; 95% confidence interval: 66-87) with proportional sedation; and 88% (n = 15; 71-100) with deep sedation. Deep sedation was necessary in 45% of those who received proportional sedation. Communication capacity was maintained in 34% with proportional sedation and 10% with deep sedation. IPOS decreased from 3.5 to 0.9 with proportional sedation, and 3.5 to 0.4 with deep sedation; RASS decreased from +0.3 to -2.6, and +0.4 to -4.2, respectively. Fatal events related to the treatment occurred in 2% (n = 1) with proportional and none with deep sedation. CONCLUSION: Proportional sedation achieved satisfactory symptom relief while maintaining some patients' consciousness, and deep sedation achieved good symptom relief while the majority of patients lost consciousness.