[Implantable cardiac device deactivation at the end of life]. / La disattivazione dei dispositivi cardiaci impiantabili alla fine della vita.

Treatment of patients with heart failure is based on drugs, cardiac surgery and implantable cardiac devices to prevent sudden cardiac death (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]), to reverse left ventricular dysfunction associated with left bundle branch block (cardiac resynchronization therapy) or mechanical circulatory support in more advanced phases of heart failure (left ventricular assist devices [LVAD]).During the follow-up, patients may die from progression of their underlying heart disease or from non-arrhythmic causes, such as malignancies, multi-organ failure, stroke, etc., without benefits by implanted devices. Patients implanted with ICD could die from non-arrhythmic causes, without appropriate shocks until the last few days or weeks of their life. These events occur roughly in 30% of patients, mainly in the last 24 h before death. LVAD therapy may induce significant complications, such as infections, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, right ventricular failure. In these cases, inappropriate and even appropriate shock deliveries by ICD can no longer prolong life and may simply lead to pain and reduced quality of life, as well as LVAD may prolong life with painful distress due to complications. Therefore, it appears important to discuss early with the patients and their relatives about deactivation of ICD or LVAD at the end of life. The goal of this paper is to provide an overview of the ethical, clinical and communication issues of cardiac implanted device deactivation, with a special focus on issues associated with advance care planning, which require shared decision-making, including those related to end of life decisions (advance directives). Palliative care should be early implemented, particularly in patients with LVAD.

[Palliative inotrope therapy in advanced heart failure: organization and management]. / Inotropi palliativi nello scompenso cardiaco avanzato: organizzazione e gestione.

A few patients in advanced or end-stage (stage D or NYHA functional class IV) heart failure are transplant or ventricular assist device eligible. Particularly for the non-operative patients (elderly or with significant comorbidities), intravenous palliative inotropes can be utilized for symptom control, for functional class and quality of life improvement. The authors report evidence-based medicine data about palliative inotrope therapy in advanced heart failure patients and they suggest a possible multidisciplinary approach in order to guarantee the best care to these patients.

Palliative sedation at the end of life at a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation (PS) its indications and outcomes in patients followed up till death by an inpatient palliative care consult team (PCCT) at a tertiary cancer center. METHODS: All patients referred for 5 years to the PCCT and followed up till death were eligible for the study. Both PCCT recordings and hospital charts were reviewed and a codified assessment was performed. RESULTS: Over a total of 2,033 consecutive consults, 129 patients died during admission and were eligible. Eighty-three had the indication to PS, 4% of all consults (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3% to 5%) and 64% of eligible patients (95%CI, 56% to 73%). PS was more frequently indicated in males and in patients with recurrent dyspnea and recurrent agitation, while it was less frequently indicated in older people and in patients with cerebral metastases and recurrent drowsiness. The most frequent indications to PS were dyspnea (37%) and delirium (31%) alone or combined with other symptoms. PS was successfully achieved in 69 patients; the drugs most frequently used for PS were midazolam (46%), haloperidol (35%), and chlorpromazine (32%) and opioid dose escalation was higher in sedated patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PS is an important intervention in the management of terminal disease by a consulting palliative care team. Improved collaboration and communication between the hospital staff and the PCCT should be offered to meet patients' needs when PS is required.

The validity of average 8-h pain intensity assessment in cancer patients.

Aim of this study was to validate the use of subjective average pain assessment over an 8-h time period to evaluate cancer pain intensity. A sample of 95 consecutive cancer inpatients were asked to score on 0-10 numerical scales the intensity of their pain at hourly intervals, and then, at the 8th hour, to rate their average pain intensity over the last 8h. Agreement between the average of the 8 hourly measures (8hA) and the single patient-rated average (PA8h) was examined with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the absolute difference (AD) between the two measurements. Associations between AD, gender, age older than 70, somatic pain, visceral pain, neuropathic pain, pain on movement and the presence of pain exacerbations during the 8-h period, were also examined. Average pain intensity scores were very similar with the two measurement schedules: 3.4 for 8hA and 3.7 for PA8h, with a median AD of 0.44 points. Only six patients (6.3%) showed ADs higher than 2 points. Also the ICC (0.85) showed a substantial agreement between the two schedules. Among the examined variables, gender, age over 70years and presence of pain exacerbations showed a significant association with the agreement level. Overall, our results support the validity of a subjective average pain measurement over 8-h period in cancer patients.

Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the Gabapentin Cancer Pain Study Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the analgesic effect of the addition of gabapentin to opioids in the management of neuropathic cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with neuropathic pain due to cancer, partially controlled with systemic opioids, participated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, 10-day trial from August 1999 to May 2002. Gabapentin was titrated from 600 mg/d to 1,800 mg/d in addition to stable opioid dose. Extra opioid doses were available as needed. Zero to 10 numerical scale was used to rate average daily pain. The average pain score over the whole follow-up period was used as main outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were: intensity of burning pain, shooting/lancinating pain, dysesthesias (also scored on 0 to 10 numerical scale), number of daily episodes of lancinating pain, presence of allodynia, and daily extra doses of opioid analgesics. RESULTS: Overall, 79 patients received gabapentin and 58 (73%) completed the study; 41 patients received placebo and 31 (76%) completed the study. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the intent-to-treat population showed a significant difference of average pain intensity between gabapentin (pain score, 4.6) and placebo group (pain score, 5.4; P =.0250). Among secondary outcome measures, dysesthesia score showed a statistically significant difference (P =.0077; ANCOVA on modified intent-to-treat population = 115 patients with at least 3 days of pain assessments). Reasons for withdrawing patients from the trial were adverse events in six patients (7.6%) receiving gabapentin and in three patients receiving placebo (7.3%). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin is effective in improving analgesia in patients with neuropathic cancer pain already treated with opioids.

Cancer patient compliance in the self-administration of a pain assessment tool.

Accurate pain assessment is considered essential for effective management of cancer pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the compliance of hospitalized patients with chronic cancer pain, referred to an inpatient palliative care consultation service, with self-assessment of pain intensity by means of a daily pain form. The form was distributed daily by the pain consult nurse and required three daily pain intensity measurements on 0 to 10 numerical scales, separately for pain at rest and pain on movement. Of 174 consecutive patients, 106 (61%) participated in the study and were followed up for a median of 10.6 days (range 1-32 days). Compliance was defined as the number of assessment forms completed over the number of evaluation days available for each patient. Mean compliance was 58%. The main reasons for not completing the form were related to subjective psychological variables (44%), physical distress (26%), and absence of pain (16%). Lack of understanding of the method was reported as the main reason for non-compliance by only 1% of patients.