The opinion of French pulmonologists and palliative care physicians on non-invasive ventilation during palliative sedation at end of life: a nationwide survey.
End of life
Limitation of treatment
Non-invasive ventilation
Palliative care
Journal
BMC palliative care
ISSN: 1472-684X
Titre abrégé: BMC Palliat Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 May 2021
17 May 2021
Historique:
received:
18
12
2020
accepted:
15
03
2021
entrez:
18
5
2021
pubmed:
19
5
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Deciding to withdraw non-invasive ventilation (NIV) at end-of-life (EOL) in patients with chronic respiratory failure is a challenge. The European Association for Palliative Care recommends not maintaining artificial therapies that could prolong life during palliative sedation (PS) at EOL. The aim of this survey was to assess palliative care physicians' and pulmonologists' opinion on withdrawing or maintaining NIV in patients with chronic respiratory failure during PS at EOL. From April to May 2019, we performed a prospective survey among pulmonologists (n = 1545) and palliative care physicians (n = 631) in France to determine the prevalence of opinion in favour of maintaining NIV and identify the factors associated with opinion in favour of withdrawing or maintaining NIV with multiple logistic regression. A total of 457 participants were enrolled comprising 202 pulmonologists and 255 palliative care physicians. An opinion in favour of maintaining NIV was found in 88 (19.3 95%CI [15.7; 23.2]) physicians comprising 57 (28.2%) pulmonologists and 31 (12.2%) palliative care physicians (p < 0.001). The factors associated with an opinion in favour of maintaining NIV were spending time looking for advanced directives (AD) in the patient's file (odds ratio (OR): 6.54, 95%CI [2.00; 21.32], p = 0.002) and personal ethics of physicians (OR: 17.97, 95%CI [9.52; 33.89], p < 0.001). The factor associated with an opinion in favour of withdrawing NIV was palliative care training (OR: 0.31, 95%CI [0.16; 0.60], p < 0.001). The three main reasons in favour of maintaining NIV among the nine identified were emotional comfort for close relatives, reducing discomfort of dyspneoa and anticipation of suffocation. In France, around 20% of pulmonologists and palliative care physicians declared an opinion in favour of maintaining NIV during PS at EOL because of their personal ethics and spending time looking for AD, if any, in the patient's file. Palliative care training can stimulate reflection help foster a change of opinion about practices, especially in the case of patients with NIV during PS at EOL.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Deciding to withdraw non-invasive ventilation (NIV) at end-of-life (EOL) in patients with chronic respiratory failure is a challenge. The European Association for Palliative Care recommends not maintaining artificial therapies that could prolong life during palliative sedation (PS) at EOL. The aim of this survey was to assess palliative care physicians' and pulmonologists' opinion on withdrawing or maintaining NIV in patients with chronic respiratory failure during PS at EOL.
METHODS
METHODS
From April to May 2019, we performed a prospective survey among pulmonologists (n = 1545) and palliative care physicians (n = 631) in France to determine the prevalence of opinion in favour of maintaining NIV and identify the factors associated with opinion in favour of withdrawing or maintaining NIV with multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 457 participants were enrolled comprising 202 pulmonologists and 255 palliative care physicians. An opinion in favour of maintaining NIV was found in 88 (19.3 95%CI [15.7; 23.2]) physicians comprising 57 (28.2%) pulmonologists and 31 (12.2%) palliative care physicians (p < 0.001). The factors associated with an opinion in favour of maintaining NIV were spending time looking for advanced directives (AD) in the patient's file (odds ratio (OR): 6.54, 95%CI [2.00; 21.32], p = 0.002) and personal ethics of physicians (OR: 17.97, 95%CI [9.52; 33.89], p < 0.001). The factor associated with an opinion in favour of withdrawing NIV was palliative care training (OR: 0.31, 95%CI [0.16; 0.60], p < 0.001). The three main reasons in favour of maintaining NIV among the nine identified were emotional comfort for close relatives, reducing discomfort of dyspneoa and anticipation of suffocation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In France, around 20% of pulmonologists and palliative care physicians declared an opinion in favour of maintaining NIV during PS at EOL because of their personal ethics and spending time looking for AD, if any, in the patient's file. Palliative care training can stimulate reflection help foster a change of opinion about practices, especially in the case of patients with NIV during PS at EOL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34001065
doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00755-w
pii: 10.1186/s12904-021-00755-w
pmc: PMC8130279
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Cherny NI. ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of refractory symptoms at the end of life and the use of palliative sedation. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:iii143–52.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu238
pubmed: 25210083
Cherny NI, Radbruch L, Board of the European Association for Palliative Care. European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care. Palliat Med. 2009;23:581–93.
doi: 10.1177/0269216309107024
pubmed: 19858355
Cherny NI, Portenoy RK. Sedation in the management of refractory symptoms: guidelines for evaluation and treatment. J Palliat Care. 1994;10(2):31–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/082585979401000207 .
doi: 10.1177/082585979401000207
pubmed: 8089815
Cunningham J. A review of sedation for intractable distress in the dying. Ir Med J. 2008;101(3):87–90.
pubmed: 18540549
Demoule A, Girou E, Richard J-C, Taillé S, Brochard L. Increased use of noninvasive ventilation in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(11):1747–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0229-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0229-z
pubmed: 16799775
Bourke SC, Tomlinson M, Williams TL, Bullock RE, Shaw PJ, Gibson GJ. Effects of non-invasive ventilation on survival and quality of life in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(2):140–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70326-4 .
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70326-4
pubmed: 16426990
Clini E, Sturani C, Rossi A, Viaggi S, Corrado A, Donner CF, et al. The Italian multicentre study on noninvasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Eur Respir J. 2002;20(3):529–38. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.02.02162001 .
doi: 10.1183/09031936.02.02162001
pubmed: 12358325
Curtis JR, Cook DJ, Sinuff T, White DB, Hill N, Keenan SP, et al. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in critical and palliative care settings: understanding the goals of therapy. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(3):932–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000256725.73993.74 .
doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000256725.73993.74
pubmed: 17255876
Carlucci A, Guerrieri A, Nava S. Palliative care in COPD patients: is it only an end-of-life issue? Eur Respir Rev Off J Eur Respir Soc. 2012;21(126):347–54. https://doi.org/10.1183/09059180.00001512 .
doi: 10.1183/09059180.00001512
Freichels TA. Palliative ventilatory support: use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in terminal respiratory insufficiency. Am J Crit Care Off Publ Am Assoc Crit-Care Nurses. 1994;3:6–10.
Levy M, Tanios MA, Nelson D, Short K, Senechia A, Vespia J, et al. Outcomes of patients with do-not-intubate orders treated with noninvasive ventilation*. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(10):2002–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000142729.07050.C9 .
doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000142729.07050.C9
pubmed: 15483407
Tripodoro VA, Rabec CA, De Vito EL. Withdrawing noninvasive ventilation at end-of-life care: is there a right time? Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2019;13(4):344–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000471 .
doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000471
pubmed: 31599816
Beckert L, Wiseman R, Pitama S, Landers A. What can we learn from patients to improve their non-invasive ventilation experience? ‘It was unpleasant; if I was offered it again, I would do what I was told’. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020;10(1):e7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2016-001151 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2016-001151
pubmed: 27580941
LOI n° 2016–87 du 2 février 2016 créant de nouveaux droits en faveur des malades et des personnes en fin de vie (1). 2016.
LOI n° 2005–370 du 22 avril 2005 relative aux droits des malades et à la fin de vie - Dossiers législatifs - Légifrance. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/dossierlegislatif/JORFDOLE000017758874/ . Accessed 3 Feb 2021.
Sprung CL, Maia P, Bulow H-H, Ricou B, Armaganidis A, Baras M, et al. The importance of religious affiliation and culture on end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(10):1732–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-007-0693-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0693-0
pubmed: 17541550
Mark NM, Rayner SG, Lee NJ, Curtis JR. Global variability in withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1572–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3810-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3810-5
pubmed: 25904183
Lesieur O, Leloup M, Gonzalez F, Mamzer M-F. Withholding or withdrawal of treatment under French rules: a study performed in 43 intensive care units. Ann Intensive Care. 2015;5(1):56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-015-0056-x .
doi: 10.1186/s13613-015-0056-x
pubmed: 26092498
Société de réanimation de langue. Limitation et arrêt des traitements en réanimation adulte. Actualisation des recommandations de la Société de réanimation de langue française. Réanimation. 2010;19:679–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.reaurg.2010.07.001
Truog RD, Campbell ML, Curtis JR, Haas CE, Luce JM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American college [corrected] of critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):953–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0B013E3181659096 .
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0B013E3181659096
pubmed: 18431285
Ergan B, Oczkowski S, Rochwerg B, Carlucci A, Chatwin M, Clini E, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines on long-term home non-invasive ventilation for management of COPD. Eur Respir J. 2019;54(3):1901003. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01003-2019 .
doi: 10.1183/13993003.01003-2019
pubmed: 31467119
Meduri GU, Fox RC, Abou-Shala N, Leeper KV, Wunderink RG. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation via face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure who refused endotracheal intubation. Crit Care Med. 1994;22(10):1584–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199422100-00013 .
doi: 10.1097/00003246-199422100-00013
pubmed: 7924369
Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow H-H, Hovilehto S, et al. End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus study. JAMA. 2003;290(6):790–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.6.790 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.290.6.790
pubmed: 12915432