Association between hydration volume and symptoms in terminally ill cancer patients with abdominal malignancies. Hypodermoclysis for control of dehydration in terminal-stage cancer. The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. A double-blind randomized trial comparing outpatient parenteral nutrition with intravenous hydration: effect on resumption of oral intake after marrow transplantation. The effect of intravenous fluid infusion on blood and urine parameters of hydration and on state of consciousness in terminal cancer patients. Effects of parenteral hydration in terminally ill cancer patients: a preliminary study. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Randomised trial. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. Fluid resuscitation in the management of early septic shock (FINESS): a randomized controlled feasibility trial.
To explore the association between hydration volume and symptoms during the last 3 weeks of life in terminally ill cancer patients.
                This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study of 226 consecutive terminally ill patients with abdominal malignancies. Primary responsible physicians and nurses evaluated the severity of membranous dehydration (dehydration score calculated from three physical findings), peripheral edema (edema score calculated from seven physical findings), ascites and pleural effusion (rated as physically undetectable to symptomatic), bronchial secretion, hyperactive delirium (Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale), communication capacity (Communication Capacity Scale), agitation (Agitation Distress Scale), myoclonus and bedsores.
                Patients were classified into two groups: the hydration group (n=59) who received 1 l or more of artificial hydration per day, 1 and 3 weeks before death, and the non-hydration group (n=167). The percentage of patients with deterioration in dehydration score in the final 3 weeks was significantly higher in the non-hydration group than the hydration group (35% versus 14%; P=0.002), while the percentages of patients whose symptom scores for edema, ascites and pleural effusion increased were significantly higher in the hydration group than the non-hydration group (44% versus 29%, P=0.039; 29% versus 8.4%, P <0.001; 15% versus 5.4%, P=0.016; respectively). After controlling for multiple covariates and treatment settings, the association between hydration group and dehydration/ascites score was statistically significant. Subgroup analysis of patients with peritoneal metastases identified statistically significant interaction between hydration group and dehydration/pleural effusion score. There were no significant differences in the degree of bronchial secretion, hyperactive delirium, communication capacity, agitation, myoclonus or bedsores.
                Artificial hydration therapy could alleviate membranous dehydration signs, but could worsen peripheral edema, ascites and pleural effusions. It is suggested that the potential benefits of artificial hydration therapy should be balanced with the risk of worsening fluid retention symptoms. Further clinical studies are strongly needed to identify the effects of artificial hydration therapy on overall patient well-being, and an individualized treatment and close monitoring of dehydration and fluid retention symptoms is strongly recommended. Many of those involved in palliative care have justifiable objections to the introduction of intravenous hydration in patients with dehydration-associated symptoms and advanced cancer. Researchers from the University of Buenos Aires carried out a randomized, comparative and prospective trail to determine the usefulness of hypodermoclysis in the control of thirst, chronic nausea and delirium. Forty-two patients were randomized into two groups. Both groups received drugs subcutaneously (haloperidol 2.5 mg every 4 hours to control delirium and/or metoclopramide 10 mg every 4 hours to control chronic nausea). The study group also received 1000 ml 5% dextrose in water infusion plus 140 milliequivalent per litre (mEq/L) sodium chloride, at a rate of 42 ml/hour per day. Both groups showed significant and equal improvements in relief of thirst and chronic nausea at 24 hours. After 48 hours, this improvement was maintained in the group that received hydration, but only for the relief of chronic nausea. Delirium did not improve significantly in either group during the 48-hour trial period. Current data suggest that decisions on rehydration of patients with terminal-phase cancer should be based more on the patient's comfort than on providing optimal hydration. Little is known about the use of palliative care for outpatients who continue to pursue treatment of their underlying disease or whether outpatient palliative medicine consultation teams improve clinical outcomes.
                We conducted a year-long controlled trial involving 50 intervention patients and 40 control patients in a general medicine outpatient clinic. Primary care physicians referred patients with advanced congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cancer who had a prognosis ranging from 1 to 5 years. In the intervention group, the primary care physicians received multiple palliative care team consultations, and patients received advance care planning, psychosocial support, and family caregiver training. Clinical and health care utilization outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months.
                Groups were similar at baseline. Similar numbers of patients died during the study year (P =.63). After the intervention, intervention group patients had less dyspnea (P =.01) and anxiety (P =.05) and improved sleep quality (P =.05) and spiritual well-being (P =.007), but no change in pain (P =.41), depression (P =.28), quality of life (P =.43), or satisfaction with care (P =.26). Few patients received recommended analgesic or antidepressant medications. Intervention patients had decreased primary care (P =.03) and urgent care visits (P =.04) without an increase in emergency department visits, specialty clinic visits, hospitalizations, or number of days in the hospital. There were no differences in charges (P =.80).
                Consultation by a palliative medicine team led to improved patient outcomes in dyspnea, anxiety, and spiritual well-being, but failed to improve pain or depression. Palliative care for seriously ill outpatients can be effective, but barriers to implementation must be explored. Outpatient parenteral nutrition (PN) is often given to marrow transplant recipients after high-dose chemoradiotherapy until the resumption of adequate oral intake; however, it may adversely prolong resumption or oral calorie intake by contributing to early satiety.
                A double-blind, randomized study compared standard PN (final concentration 25% dextrose, 5% amino acids) with a hydration solution (5% dextrose) during the first 28 days of outpatient treatment. Patients were eligible for the study if they were > or = 2 years of age, < 65 days posttransplant, had < 70% oral caloric intake at hospital discharge, and required < or = 10 U insulin/L PN. Solutions were provided until the patient's oral intake met > or = 85% caloric requirements for 3 consecutive days.
                Two hundred fifty-eight marrow transplant recipients (128, PN and 130, hydration solution) were studied. Age, donor type, and diagnoses were similar in the two groups. Time to resumption of > or = 85% oral caloric intake was 6 days sooner in the hydration group than in the PN group (median 10 vs 16 days, respectively; p = .049). When adjusting for sex, age, donor type, total body irradiation, previous oral intake, acute graft-versus-host disease, and prednisone therapy, the hydration group resumed oral intake sooner than the PN group (relative risk = 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 2.19; p = .029). The percentage of weight change from pretransplant values, adjusted for the above covariates and the number of weeks of treatment, indicated that the hydration solution group lost weight (4.63%) compared with the PN group (1.27%) after 4 weeks of therapy (p = .004). Rates of hospital readmissions, relapse of malignancy, and survival did not differ between the two treatment groups.
                We conclude that outpatient PN delays resumption of oral intake and that its replacement with hydration solution does not result in adverse patient outcome. This prospective study was undertaken to assess the state of hydration in terminal cancer patients with and without intravenous fluids during the last 48 hours of their lives and to correlate various measures of hydration with their state of consciousness. We examined indicators of hydration in the plasma and urine of 68 consecutive patients for whom data were available at 48 hours or less before death. Thirteen of the patients were being treated with intravenous (IV) fluids. Nearly all of the patients studied were found to be dehydrated, as determined by laboratory measurements. State of consciousness correlated inversely with serum sodium (p < 0.001) and urine osmolality (p < 0.02). Patients receiving intravenous fluids were not better hydrated than those without IV therapy, nor was their state of consciousness improved. In light of these findings, which suggest there is no clinical benefit from intravenous infusions, decisions regarding intravenous fluid therapy during the last hours of life should be guided by the preferences of the dying patient and his family. Most patients with cancer develop decreased oral intake and dehydration before death. This study aimed to determine the effect of parenteral hydration on overall symptom control in terminally ill cancer patients with dehydration.
                Patients with clinical evidence of mild to moderate dehydration and a liquid oral intake less than 1,000 mL/day were randomly assigned to receive either parenteral hydration with 1,000 mL (treatment group) or placebo with 100 mL normal saline administered over 4 hours for 2 days. Patients were evaluated for target symptoms (hallucinations, myoclonus, fatigue, and sedation), global well-being, and overall benefit.
                Twenty-seven patients randomly assigned to the treatment group had improvement in 53 (73%) of their 73 target symptoms versus 33 (49%) of 67 target symptoms in the placebo group (n=22; P = .005). Fifteen (83%) of 18 and 15 (83%) of 18 patients had improved myoclonus and sedation after hydration versus eight (47%) of 17 and five (33%) of 15 patients after placebo (P = .035 and P = .005, respectively). There were no significant differences of improvement in hallucinations or fatigue between groups. When blinded to treatment, patients (17 [63%] of 77) and investigators (20 [74%] of 27) perceived hydration as effective compared with placebo in nine (41%) of 22 patients (P = .78) and 12 (54%) of 22 investigators (P = .15), respectively. The intensity of pain and swelling at the injection site were not significantly different between groups.
                Parenteral hydration decreased symptoms of dehydration in terminally ill cancer patients who had decreased fluid intake. Hydration was well tolerated, and a placebo effect was observed. Studies with larger samples and a longer follow-up period are justified. Caring for relatives with advanced cancer may cause psychological and physical ill health.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of increased support for distressed, informal carers of patients receiving palliative care.
                The sample was composed of 271 informal carers who scored over 5 on the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). The intervention comprised six weekly visits by a trained advisor. Primary outcome was carer distress (GHQ-28) at 4-week, 9-week and 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were carer strain and quality of life, satisfaction with care, and bereavement outcome.
                Scores on the GHQ-28 fell below the threshold of 5/6 in a third of participants in each trial arm at any follow-up point. Mean scores in the intervention group were lower at all time points but these differences were not significant. No difference was observed in secondary outcomes. Carers receiving the intervention reported qualitative benefit.
                The intervention might have been too brief, and ongoing help might have had accruing benefits. Alternatively, informal carers of patients with cancer may already receive considerable input and the advisor's help gave little additional advantage; or caring for a dying relative is extremely stressful and no amount of support is going to make it much better. To evaluate a palliative care home support team based on an inpatient unit.
                Randomised controlled trial with waiting list. Patients in the study group received the service immediately, those in the control group received it after one month. Main comparison point was at one month.
                A city of 300,000 people with a publicly funded home care service and about 200 general practitioners, most of whom provide home care.
                Pain and nausea levels were measured at entry to trial and at one month, as were quality of life for patients and care givers' health.
                Because of early deaths, problems with recruitment, and a low compliance rate for completion of questionnaires, the required sample size was not attained.
                In designing evaluations of palliative care services, investigators should be prepared to deal with the following issues: attrition due to early death, opposition to randomisation by patients and referral sources, ethical problems raised by randomisation of dying patients, the appropriate timing of comparison points, and difficulties of collecting data from sick or exhausted patients and care givers. Investigators may choose to evaluate a service from various perspectives using different methods: controlled trials, qualitative studies, surveys, and audits. Randomised trials may prove to be impracticable for evaluation of palliative care. It is unknown whether fluid resuscitation with colloid or crystalloid in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock is associated with an improvement in clinical outcome. This randomized controlled trial determined the feasibility of conducting a large trial testing resuscitation with pentastarch vs normal saline in early septic shock, powered for a difference in mortality.
                At three Canadian and one New Zealand academic centre, 40 patients with early septic shock defined by at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, infectious source, and persistent hypotension after >or= 1 L of crystalloid fluid were recruited. Feasibility measures were patient recruitment, blinding of the study fluids, and acceptability of the goal directed algorithms. Boluses of blinded normal saline or pentastarch (500 mL - maximum 3 L or 28 mL x kg(-1)) were administered within goal directed care for the first 12 hr.
                Of 161 patients screened, 121 were excluded and 40 patients were enrolled, for a recruitment rate of 0.75 patients/site/month. Only 57% of physicians and 54% of nurses correctly guessed the study fluid (P = 0.46 and P = 0.67, respectively). The goal directed algorithms were acceptable to 97% of physicians.
                The ability to recruit patients in this pilot randomized controlled trial was below expectations. Blinding of study fluids was adequate, and resuscitation algorithms were acceptable to most physicians. Methods to improve recruitment are required to enhance the feasibility of conducting a multicentre fluid resuscitation trial in early septic shock.
Since the last version of this review no new studies were found. However there is one ongoing, high quality study that has not reached full recruitment. There are insufficient good quality studies to make any recommendations for practice with regard to the use of medically assisted hydration in palliative care patients.