Background: Continuous deep sedation is ethically controversial with respect to whether it shortens a patient’s life. Aim: To examine whether continuous deep sedation shortens patient survival from the day of Palliative Performance Scale decline to 20 (PPS20). Design: A part of a multicenter prospective cohort study (EASED study). Setting/participants: We recruited consecutive adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to 23 participating palliative care units in 2017 in Japan. We compared survival from PPS20 between those who did and did not receive continuous deep sedation. Continuous deep sedation was defined as the continuous administration of sedative medication with the intention to keep a patient continuously unconscious to alleviate otherwise uncontrollable symptoms, but the dose of sedatives was adjusted to achieve adequate symptom relief for each patient. The propensity score-weighting method was used to control for potential confounders, and five sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: A total of 1926 patients were enrolled. Patients discharged alive were excluded, and we analyzed 1625 patients of whom 156 (9.6%) received continuous deep sedation. Median survival from PPS20 of 1625 patients was 81 h (95% CI: 77–88). The RASS scores decreased to ⩽−4 was 66% at 24 h. Continuous deep sedation was not associated with a significant survival risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85–1.33). All sensitivity analyses, including continuous deep sedation defined as the RASS score was ⩽−4 achieved the essentially the same results. Conclusions: Continuous deep sedation with careful dose adjustment was not associated with shorter survival in the last days of life in patients with advanced cancer.

Background: How clinicians treat patients with terminal dyspnea widely varies, which could hamper quality care. We visualized comprehensive pharmacological treatment delivered by palliative care physicians.Aim: To examine adherence to a comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm for patients with terminal dyspnea, and to explore its outcomes during 48 h.Design: A multicenter cohort study at five sites (February 2020 to June 2021).Setting/Participants: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with advanced cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3–4, and moderate/severe dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated algorithm‐based treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of adherence to the treatment algorithm over 24 h (predefined goal, 70%). We evaluated the adherence, goal achievement, and dyspnea level with a numerical rating scale (NRS), as well as adverse events over 48 h.Results: All 108 patients received algorithm‐based pharmacological treatment. Among 96 and 87 patients who were alive at 24 and 48 h, respectively, 96 (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 96%–100%) and 82 (94%; 95%CI = 87%–98%) continued to receive the algorithm treatment, respectively, and 66 (69%; 95%CI = 59%–77%) and 64 (74%; 95%CI = 63%–82%) achieved the treatment goals, respectively. Using a complete case analysis with paired t‐tests, mean dyspnea NRS scores significantly reduced from 7.3 (standard error, 0.2) at the baseline to 4.9 (0.3) at 24 h (n = 72; p < 0.001), and 7.2 (0.3) at the baseline to 4.6 (0.4) at 48 h (n = 55; p < 0.001). Most adverse events were mild to moderate.Conclusions: The comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm was feasible, and the study data supports its preliminary efficacy and safety. The use of this algorithm may help clinicians improve care for patients with terminal dyspnea.

Background: Malignant ascites often causes discomfort in advanced cancer patients. Paracentesis is the most common treatment modality, but it requires frequently repeated treatment. Cell-free and concentrated ascites reinfusion therapy (CART) may prolong the paracentesis interval, but controlled trials are lacking. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of CART vs. paracentesis alone for patients with refractory malignant ascites. Methods: This study was an open-label, fast-track, randomized controlled, feasibility trial. Patients admitted to four designated cancer hospitals who received no further anticancer treatments were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a CART arm or control (simple paracentesis) arm. The feasibility endpoint was the percentage of patients who completed the study intervention. Secondary endpoints included paracentesis-free survival, patient’s request on the questionnaire for paracentesis (PRO-paracentesis)-free survival (the period until the patients first reported that they would want paracentesis if indicated), and adverse events. Results: We screened 953 patients for eligibility. Of 61 patients with refractory malignant ascites, 21 patients were determined as eligible. Finally, 20 patients consented and were allocated; 18 patients (90%, 95% CI: 68.3–98.8) completed the study intervention. All patients had an ECOG performance status of 3 or 4. The median drained ascites volume was 3,200 mL in the CART arm and 2,500 mL in the control arm. In the CART arm, the median reinfused albumin volume was 12.6 g. Median paracentesis-free survivals were 5 days (95% CI: 2–6) in the CART arm, and 6 days (3–9) in the control arm. Median PRO-paracentesis-free survivals were 4 days (2–5) and 5 days (1–9), respectively. A total of 73% of patients received paracentesis within 2 days from their first request for the next paracentesis. One patient in the CART arm developed Grade 1 fever. Conclusions: A fast-track randomized controlled trial of CART for patients with malignant ascites is feasible. The efficacy and safety of CART should be assessed in future trials. PRO-paracentesis-free survival may be a complementary outcome measure with paracentesis-free survival in future trials. Trial registration: Registered at University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry as UMIN000031029. Registered on 28/01/2018.