• Masanori Mori, Takashi Kawaguchi, Kengo Imai, Naosuke Yokomichi, Takashi Yamaguchi, Kozue Suzuki, Ryo Matsunuma, Hiroaki Watanabe, Isseki Maeda, Yoshihisa Matsumoto, Yoshinobu Matsuda, Tatsuya Morita, and EASED Investigators.
• Palliative and Supportive Care Division, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan. Electronic address: masanori.mori@sis.seirei.or.jp.
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021 Nov 1; 62 (5): 936-948.

ContextHow physicians use opioids for dyspnea in imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea) varies markedly, which could hamper quality care.ObjectivesTo examine the adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal dyspnea, and explore its outcomes over 24 hours.MethodsThis was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were: advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, ECOG performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS). We developed an algorithm to visualize how palliative care physicians would use parenteral opioids. Participating physicians (palliative care specialists) initiated parenteral opioids, choosing whether to use the algorithm based on their preference. We measured the adherence rate to the algorithm over 24 hours (predefined goal = 70%), and compared dyspnea IPOS scores and adverse events between patients with and without algorithm-based treatment.ResultsOf 164 patients (median survival = 5 days), 71 (43%) received algorithm-based treatment, and 70 (99%; 95% confidence interval = 92%-100%) adhered to it over 24 hours. In a complete case analysis, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 2.9 (standard error = 0.1) to 1.5 (0.1) in the algorithm group (n = 54; P < 0.001), and 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.1) in the non-algorithm group (n = 72; P < 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in changes in dyspnea IPOS scores (P = 0.65). Adverse events were rare (n = 5).ConclusionThe algorithm-based treatment was feasible, and might be as effective and safe as the usual care by palliative care specialists. Its implementation may help physicians provide quality care for terminal dyspnea.Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…