Search

Background: The objective of this study was to explore the underlying etiologies associated with the resolution and improvement of delirium in ill‐hospitalized cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for delirium. Participants were cancer patients with delirium. We assessed the Delirium Rating Scale, Revised‐98 (DRS‐R98) severity scale score at baseline and three days after pharmacotherapy initiation. Delirium resolution was defined as a DRS‐R98 severity scale score ≤9, and improvement was defined as ≥50% reduction at Day 3. Results: We enrolled 566 patients (491 patients had performance status of 3 or 4). The resolution and improvement rates in all patients were 22.6% and 19.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis determined that nonrespiratory infection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.38‐3.45) was significantly associated with greater resolution, while dehydration (0.40, 0.19‐0.87), organic damage to the central nervous system (CNS) (0.32, 0.43‐0.72), hypoxia (0.25, 0.12‐0.52), and hyponatremia (0.34, 0.12‐0.97) were significantly associated with no resolution. Potential causes associated with delirium improvement were nonrespiratory infection (1.93, 1.19‐3.13), organic damage to the CNS (0.40, 0.18‐1.90), and hypoxia (0.32, 0.16‐0.65). After multivariate analysis, dehydration (0.34, 0.15‐0.76), organic damage to the CNS (0.25, 0.10‐0.60), and hypoxia (0.29, 0.14‐0.61) were significantly associated with no resolution. Conclusions: Delirium caused by nonrespiratory infection may be reversible, while delirium associated with dehydration, organic damage to the CNS, hypoxia, or hyponatremia seems to be irreversible in ill‐hospitalized cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pharmacotherapy is generally recommended to treat patients with delirium. We sought to describe the current practice, effectiveness, and adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in patients with advanced cancer, and to explore predictors of the deterioration of delirium symptoms after starting pharmacotherapy. Subjects, Materials, and Methods: We included data of patients with advanced cancer who were diagnosed with hypoactive delirium and received pharmacotherapy for treatment of delirium. This was a pharmacovigilance study characterized by prospective registries and systematic data‐recording using internet technology, conducted among 38 palliative care teams and/or units. The severity of delirium and other outcomes were assessed using established measures at days 0 (T0), 3 (T1), and 7 (T2). Results: Available data were obtained from 218 patients. The most frequently used agent was haloperidol (37%). A total of 67 and 42 patients (31% and 19%) had died or discontinued pharmacotherapy by T1 and T2, respectively. Delirium symptoms deteriorated between T0 and T1, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. The most prevalent adverse event was sedation (9%). Delirium severity worsened after starting pharmacotherapy in 121 patients (56%) at T1. In patients whose death was expected within a few days and those with delirium caused by organ failure, symptoms of delirium were significantly more likely to deteriorate after starting pharmacotherapy. Conclusion: Current pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in patients with advanced cancer is not recommended, especially in those whose death is expected within a few days and in those with delirium caused by organ failure. Implications for Practice: Delirium is common among patients with advanced cancer, and hypoactive delirium is the dominant motor subtype in the palliative care setting. Pharmacotherapy is recommended and regularly used to treat delirium. This article describes the effectiveness and adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in patients with advanced cancer. The findings of this study do not support the use of pharmacotherapy for treatment of hypoactive delirium in the palliative care setting. Pharmacotherapy should especially be avoided in patients whose death is expected within a few days and in those with delirium caused by organ failure. Many patients with advanced cancer develop hypoactive delirium. This article describes current practice and overall effectiveness and adverse effects of commonly used pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in advanced cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) could be regarded as a patients' own non-treatment decision that hastens death, which involves patients voluntarily forgoing food and liquid until death. The aims of this study were to investigate the experience of home hospice physicians and palliative care specialists who care for patients during VSED in Japan, and their opinions on continuous deep sedation (CDS) as a means to relieve patient symptoms during VSED., Methods: 219 home hospice physicians and 695 palliative care specialists across Japan were surveyed by mail questionnaire in 2016., Results: A total of 571 (62%) responses were analysed. A total of 185 (32%) had experience of patients who selected VSED. In response to questions about CDS to provide relief to patients during VSED, the number of physicians who replied that CDS was acceptable was 88 (15%)., Conclusions: In Japan, 32% of physicians surveyed replied that they had experience of caring for patients during VSED in a clinical setting and 15% considered CDS acceptable., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)