[Transition from intensive care to palliative care : A retrospective analysis of 102 consultation requests]. / Transition von der Intensivmedizin zur Palliativmedizin : Eine retrospektive Analyse von 102 Konsilanforderungen.

BACKGROUND: The transition of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the palliative care (PC) ward often implies changes including establishing a palliative concept. Adaptation of therapeutic goals can be challenging for medical staff, patients and relatives; however, descriptions of these transition trajectories are rare. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to characterize the consultation requests of the ICU to the PC consultation team as well as the patients by a description of trajectories and interventions. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients receiving intensive care at RWTH Aachen University Hospital in 2019 for whom a PC consultation was requested. The patient population transferred from the ICU to the PC ward was compared with the non-transferred population. In each case, the primary consultation was evaluated regarding the following factors: question, vigilance, length of time from consultation request to its performance, and primary focus of the question. The question focus was categorized into "symptom control", "counselling" and "transfer" (tick options). In addition, a free text field was available for further notes. Exploration of diagnoses was complemented by accessing the electronic health records. RESULTS: A total of 102 consultation requests from the ICU to the PC ward were evaluated. The morbidity of patients was high, and most patients had at least one of the following diagnoses: pulmonary (62%), cardiovascular (61%), and/or neurological disease (55%). Of the patients 32 (31%) were transferred to the PC ward, among whom weakness (94%), fatigue (77%), anxiety (55%), pain (53%), and dyspnea (48%) were the most frequently noted symptoms. Of the transferred patients 5 (16%) could be discharged to home, nursing home, hospice or other. In total, 35 (34%) of all patients who were seen by palliative care specialists on ICUs in 2019 could be discharged alive. The most frequent reasons for nonadmission were lack of capacity of the PC ward (33%), dying while being on the waiting list (20%), and refusal by the patient (20%). Of the patients, 7 (26%) died within 48 h after they had been transferred to the PC ward. Performed consultation services "symptom control" (χ2 = 10.17; p < 0.05) and "counselling" (χ2 = 12.82; p < 0.001), which were requested by the intensive care physicians, showed a significant linkage with the respective intervention performed by the palliative care team. On the other hand, no statistically significant difference was found for requested and performed "transfer" of patients from ICUs to PC ward. Comparing the transferred versus non-transferred patient population, a significantly more frequent transfer of patients with malignant tumors (p = 0.00) was observed. CONCLUSION: The need for palliative care support in the ICUs exceeded the admission capacity of the PC ward. Future studies should further examine palliative care models in intensive care medicine.

[Perceptions on handling of opioids: focus COVID-19 : A survey among anesthesiologists via the specialist societies DGAI/BDA]. / Wahrnehmungen zum Umgang mit Opioiden: Fokus COVID-19 : Eine Umfrage unter Anästhesist:innen über die Fachgesellschaften DGAI/BDA.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are part of the daily routine in anesthesiology and palliative care; however, treatment of dyspnea with opioids is presented heterogeneously in guidelines. This may result in an uncertainty concerning opioid indications and ethical concerns, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the perception of anesthesiologists concerning the handling of morphine as the reference opioid (subsequently termed M/O) for symptom control within and outside of a palliative care setting, including care for COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists (BDA) received an anonymized online questionnaire (Survey Monkey®; Momentive Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) in October 2020, containing questions regarding their perception of symptom management with M/O in general, and in particular concerning COVID-19 patients. Participants were asked to rate their perception within and outside a palliative care setting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 1365 anesthesiologists participated; 46% women. Most anesthesiologists were 41-60 years old (58%), worked in a hospital setting (78%), in the operating theatre (63%) and in intensive care units (49%). The majority (57%) reported > 20 years of professional experience (52%) and partial involvement in palliative care (57%). Perception of M/O handling was mostly "certain and confident" (88%) and "clearly regulated" (85%) within a palliative care setting but rated substantially lower for outside palliative care (77%/63%). When caring for COVID-19 patients, handling of M/O was even less often rated "certain and confident" (40%) or "clearly regulated" (29%) outside palliative care. Dyspnea (95%/75%), relief of the dying process (84%/51%), agitation (59%/27%) and anxiety/panic (61%/33%) were more frequently rated as general indications for morphine within versus outside palliative care. The majority of anesthesiologists disputed that M/O is given with the intention to hasten death within (87%) and outside (93%) palliative care. Highest difference in route of administration was reported for the subcutaneous administration of M/O within (76%) versus outside (33%) palliative care, followed by the intravenous route (57%/79%), while oral (66/62%) and transdermal (48%/39%) administration were reported to be used comparatively frequently. Most participants (85%) wanted more frequent involvement of palliative care consultation teams but also more team conferences (75%), supervision (72%), and training on opioid management (69%). CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists perceived considerable uncertainty in using M/O for nonpalliative care medical settings. Highest uncertainty was seen for the care of patients with COVID-19. The prevalent use of the subcutaneous route for M/O application in palliative care can serve as inspiration for areas outside palliative care as well. Uniform interdisciplinary guidelines for symptom control including dyspnea, education and involvement of a palliative care consultation team should be more considered in the future.

[Perceptions on the use of opioids: focus on COVID-19 : Free-text analysis of a survey in anesthesiology/intensive care, internal medicine, and palliative care]. / Wahrnehmungen zum Umgang mit Opioiden: Fokus COVID-19 : Freitext-Analyse einer Umfrage in Anästhesiologie/Intensivmedizin, Innerer Medizin und Palliativmedizin.

BACKGROUND: Opioids efficiently manage pain and dyspnea. However, guidelines on symptom management with opioids differ, which may lead to uncertainty among medical staff concerning opioid indication and ethical implication, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients. AIMS: We aimed to examine the perception of morphine/opioid (M/O) administration for symptom control within and outside palliative care, including care for COVID-19 patients, among members of the German associations for palliative medicine, internal medicine, anesthesiology and intensive care. METHODS: Participants received an anonymized online questionnaire via Survey Monkey® (Momentive Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) regarding their general perception of symptom management with M/O. These results have been published elsewhere. For systematic and structural analysis of comments in the free-text field, we chose Phillip Mayring's method of summarizing qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Of the n = 2202 persons who participated, 339 wrote comments in the free-text field which were categorized as follows: main categories 1) personal perceptions of COVID-19 patients, 2) administration and effect of M/O, 3) observations within the palliative care field, 4) imparting knowledge concerning M/O usage and palliative care, and 5) others. CONCLUSIONS: Some participants reported very personal perceptions and deficits of the healthcare system, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients. Uniform interdisciplinary guidelines for symptom control, more education, and support by trained staff confident in symptom control should be increasingly considered in the future.

[Perceptions on the use of opioids in COVID-19 : A survey of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine]. / Wahrnehmungen zum Umgang mit Opioiden bei COVID-19 : Eine Umfrage unter Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin.

BACKGROUND: Opioids efficiently alleviate pain and dyspnea. However, guidelines on symptom management with opioids differ, which may lead to an uncertainty concerning opioid indication and ethical implication among medical staff, especially when caring for COVID-19 patients. AIMS: We aimed to examine the perception of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) concerning the administration of morphine as the gold standard opioid (subsequently termed M/O) for symptom control within and outside of a palliative care (PC) setting, including care for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: DGP members received an anonymized online questionnaire (Survey Monkey®) containing questions regarding their perception of symptom management with M/O in general and in particular concerning COVID-19 patients. Participants were asked to rate their perception within and outside of a PC setting. RESULTS: Of the 6129 DGP members, N = 506 participated. DGP physicians and nurses perceived handling of M/O as "certain and confident" (98%) and "clearly regulated" within PC (95%) but rated it significantly lower for outside PC (48%/38%). When caring for COVID-19 patients, handling of M/O was even less often rated "certain and confident" (26%) or "clearly regulated" (23%) for outside PC. Dyspnea (99%/52%), relief from the dying process (62%/37%), restlessness (30%/15%) and fear or panic (27%/13%) were more frequently rated as general indications for morphine within versus outside PC. Most participants (89%) wished to involve palliative care consultation teams. CONCLUSIONS: DGP members perceived substantial uncertainty in the handling of M/O for medical fields outside PC. Uniform interdisciplinary guidelines for symptom control, more education, and involvement of a PC consultation team should be increasingly considered in the future.

[Basic Knowledge of Drug Pain Therapy in the Palliative Situation]. / Basiswissen zur medikamentösen Schmerztherapie in der Palliativsituation.

This review provides an overview of the basic knowledge of drug pain therapy in the palliative situation. Pain is one of the main symptoms in 60 to 90 % of cancer patients. Pain also develops with neurological and other diseases that occur in end-of-life situations. To address this symptom, a holistic strategy is required that encompasses all physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of the multi-dimensional pain experience ("total pain" concept).Drug treatment for cancer pain has been based on a stepwise approach for many years, starting with non-opioid analgesics, followed by moderate and strong opioids. In contrast, today's pain management is determined more by the actual intensity of this aversive event.The pain assessment should be tailored to identify a nociceptive vs. neuropathic pain component that needs to be challenged by the most appropriate drug therapies. Non-opioid analgesics are ideal substances for relieving nociceptive pain. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants reduce the intensity of new neuropathic pain. Opioids are suitable for all types of pain, but are restricted to a second line choice. Among all opioids are tilidine and tramadol prodrugs, which only relieve pain after activation in the liver. Drug-drug interactions may also block this activation. Rapid release opioids should be used for cancer breakthrough pain. Transdermal opioid applications are recommended for swallowing disorders, but usually not to initiate pain control. An opioid switch can be performed if side effects such as hallucinations for the selected opioid are more pronounced than the pain reduction.

The opioid oxycodone use-dependently inhibits the cardiac sodium channel NaV 1.5.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Oxycodone is a potent semi-synthetic opioid that is commonly used for the treatment of severe acute and chronic pain. However, treatment with oxycodone can lead to cardiac electrical changes, such as long QT syndrome, potentially inducing sudden cardiac arrest. Here, we investigate whether the cardiac side effects of oxycodone can be explained by modulation of the cardiac Nav 1.5 sodium channel. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Heterologously expressed human Nav 1.5, Nav 1.7 (HEK293 cells) or Nav 1.8 channels (mouse N1E-115 cells) were used for whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiology. A variety of voltage-clamp protocols were used to test the effect of oxycodone on different channel gating modalities. Human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes were used to measure the effect of oxycodone on cardiomyocyte beating. KEY RESULTS: Oxycodone inhibited Nav 1.5 channels, concentration and use-dependently, with an IC50 of 483 µM. In addition, oxycodone slows recovery of Nav 1.5 channels from fast inactivation and increases slow inactivation. At high concentrations, these effects lead to a reduced beat rate in cardiomyocytes and to arrhythmia. In contrast, no such effects could be observed on Nav 1.7 or Nav 1.8 channels. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Oxycodone leads to an accumulation of Nav 1.5 channels in inactivated states, with a slow time course. Although the concentrations needed to elicit cardiac arrhythmias in vitro are relatively high, some patients under long-term treatment with oxycodone as well as drug abusers and addicts might suffer from severe cardiac side effects induced by the slowly developing effects of oxycodone on Nav 1.5 channels.

Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care: executive summary of a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. METHODS: We considered randomized controlled trials concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared with placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. RESULTS: We screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Meta-analysis of data was possible for modafinil, pemoline, and methylphenidate. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Some drugs, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care such as amantadine, methylphenidate, and modafinil, should be further researched.

Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care.

BACKGROUND: This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.