When Less is More,but Still Not Enough: Why Focusing on Limiting Antipsychotics in People With Dementia Is the Wrong Policy Imperative

Antipsychotic reductions have been the primary focus of efforts to improve dementia care in nursing homes by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Partnership. Although significant antipsychotic reductions have been achieved, this policy focus is myopic in 2 ways; there is no evidence for any increases in use of nonpharmacologic interventions, and there are indications for compensatory increases in the use of other (unmeasured) sedating psychotropics. This increased use of other sedating psychotropics is more concerning than the antipsychotics that they replaced, as there is even less support of efficacy for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and ample proof of harms, including mortality. The current paradigm of “assessment” and “treatment” for BPSD is largely cursory and reflexive, with little effort put forth to understand possible underlying causes. This contrasts with the methodical, evidence-based way the field handles other symptoms considered “medical” (eg, shortness of breath). To move beyond this nonmedical approach to BPSD, we suggest a conceptual model that includes putative causal contributors. Although at their core BPSD are caused by brain circuitry disruptions, such disruptions are theorized to increase the person with dementia's vulnerability to 3 categories of triggers: those related to the (1) patient (eg, pain, hunger, and infection), (2) caregivers (eg, competing priorities, unrealistic expectations, and negative communications), and (3) environment (eg, overstimulation and limited light exposure). Assessing modifiable triggers is inherently person-centered as it enables clinicians to select specific nonpharmacologic strategies to mitigate identified triggers. Assessing triggers and selecting strategies, however, is time-intensive and reflects a paradigm shift necessitating a reorganization of dementia care including compensation for time spent elucidating and addressing modifiable triggers, vs unintendedly incentivizing the use of potentially harmful psychotropics. This paradigm shift should also include the measurement and restriction of any sedating medications for BPSD, particularly without assessment of underlying causes.     

Effects of deep sedation on sleep in critically ill medical patients on mechanical ventilation

Atypical EEG patterns not consistent with standard sleep staging criteria have been observed in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Our aim was to examine the relationship between sleep architecture and sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients pre‐ and post‐extubation. We performed a prospective observational repeated measures study where 50 mechanically ventilated patients with 31 paired analyses were examined at an academic medical centre. The sleep efficiency was 58.3 ± 25.4% for intubated patients and 45.6 ± 25.4% for extubated patients (p = .02). Intubated patients spent 76.33 ± 3.34% of time in non‐rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep compared to 64.66 ± 4.06% of time for extubated patients (p = .02). REM sleep constituted 1.36 ± 0.67% of total sleep time in intubated patients and 2.06 ± 1.09% in extubated patients (p = .58). Relative sleep atypia was higher in intubated patients compared to extubated patients (3.38 ± 0.87 versus 2.79 ± 0.42; p < .001). Eleven patients were sedated with propofol only, 18 patients with fentanyl only, 11 patients with fentanyl and propofol, and 10 patients had no sedation. The mean sleep times on “propofol”, “fentanyl”, “propofol and fentanyl,” and “no sedation” were 6.54 ± 0.64, 4.88 ± 0.75, 6.20 ± 0.75 and 4.02 ± 0.62 hr, respectively. The sigma/alpha values for patients on “propofol”, “fentanyl”, “propofol and fentanyl” and “no sedation” were 0.69 ± 0.04, 0.54 ± 0.01, 0.62 ± 0.02 and 0.57 ± 0.02, respectively. Sedated patients on mechanical ventilation had higher sleep efficiency and more atypia compared to the same patients following extubation. Propofol was associated with higher sleep duration and less disrupted sleep architecture compared to fentanyl, propofol and fentanyl, or no sedation.     

Documento de consenso y recomendaciones sobre cuidados paliativos en insuficiencia cardiaca de las Secciones de Insuficiencia Cardiaca y Cardiología Geriátrica de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología

Heart failure is a complex entity, with high morbidity and mortality. The clinical course and outcome are uncertain and difficult to predict. This document, instigated by the Heart Failure and Geriatric Cardiology Working Groups of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, addresses various aspects related to palliative care, where most cardiovascular disease will eventually converge. The document also establishes a consensus and a series of recommendations with the aim of recognizing and understanding the need to implement and progressively apply palliative care throughout the course of the disease, not only in the advanced stages, thus improving the care provided and quality of life. The purpose is to improve and adapt treatment to the needs and wishes of each patient, who must have adequate information and participate in decision-making.