Skip to main content

Parenteral Fluids at the End of Life


It is better to die dry than wet. At least that is the gist of traditional thinking in hospice and palliative care, where parenteral (IV or subcutaneous) fluids are often avoided at the very end of life to prevent fluid buildup in the lungs and other organs.

The problem is that delirium often complicates end of life care as well. It is one of the four most common emergency calls for individuals receiving palliative care in the home and a common reason for admissions into inpatient hospice units. Reduced oral intake, a part of the natural dying process, may result in dehydration in some but not all individuals at the end of life, and may be a factor in the development delirium. Studies in the geriatric literature suggest that early recognition of dehydration and volume repletion is an important component of delirium prevention.

So, how do we reconcile our desire to avoid the unintended consequences of IV hydration in those at the end of life with that of treating dehydration to prevent delirium?  Some argue for a greater use of parenteral fluids in these patients to improve quality of life, at the very least for those with some evidence of dehydration.  However, the question remains, does IV hydration improve quality of life and decrease incidence of delirium, or will it just worsen symptoms at the end of life?

Dr. Eduardo Bruera and colleagues from MD Anderson add some evidence to how best to manage fluids at the end of life thanks to a study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The authors randomized 129 individuals with advanced cancer from 6 hospices to either parenteral subcutaneous hydration of 1 L per day of normal saline or placebo.  In order to maintain blinding for both patients and staff, the placebo was a 100ml a day of saline injected over a similar 4 hour period per day as the fluids in the intervention group.

Inclusion criteria included advanced cancer, reduced oral intake of fluids with evidence of mild or moderate dehydration, at least mild symptoms of fatigue, hallucinations, sedation, and myoclonus, a life expectancy of less than 1 week, , and a Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score less than 13 (i.e not severe delirium). Those with severe dehydration were excluded as were individuals with renal failure, congestive heart failure, or a history or clinical evidence of bleeding disorders.

The primary outcome was change from baseline to day 4 for the sum of four dehydration symptoms (fatigue, myoclonus, sedation and hallucinations). They also included a rather complete amount of secondary outcomes including:

  • Individual items on a symptom assessment scale - the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS)
  • Two dementia scales – the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC) – and one agitation scale
  • A quality of life scale – the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F)
  • Dehydration assessment scale (the Dehydration Assessment Scale)
  • Labs including creatinine, urea, and electolytes
  • Overall survival.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between the IV hydration group and the placebo group at either 4 days or 7 days in regards to:
  • The sum of the four dehydration symptoms (-3.3 vs -2.8, P=0.77)
  • Individual symptom evaluation based on the ESAS
  • Overall delirium scores based on the MDAS
  • Quality of life scores
  • Dehydration assessment scores
  • Median survival

The authors did find some differences in some measures such as night-time delirium scores, which was worse in the placebo group. However, given the numerous secondary outcomes (47 of them), I wouldn't place much weight on this, as by pure chance at least two of these outcomes will be positive using a P of 0.05.

One big limitation of the study was that it was underpowered. The planned sample size was 150 patients, but funding issues required termination of the study after 129 patients. This was likely due to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. So, you can argue that the authors didn't find a difference because they didn't enroll enough patients (a Type II error). This may be a classic Type II error where no significant difference between groups are reported when in fact such a difference exists.  I would be surprised though if the authors enrolled another 21 patients that a clinically significant result would have materialized for the primary outcome since it didn't look like a trend was developing (-3.3 vs -2.8, P=0.77).

So in the end, we have some data to suggest that IV hydration of 1 liter is unlikely to provide a meaningful benefit to most hospice patients with advanced cancer with mild to moderate dehydration (but not severe).


by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comments

Moshe said…
I have not yet had a chance to read the entire study, so forgive me if this is addressed there.

Why was only one liter of fluid given? Is it possible that the reason no difference was found is because both groups were dehydrated, and the degree of dehydration did not show a difference clinically?
Eric Widera said…
Great question. The study gave 1 Liter of fluids per day "until the patient was unresponsive, developed progressive coma, or died."

Per the authors "a volume of 1,000 mL per day was chosen on the basis of previous studies demonstrating that this amount was adequate to improve clinical outcomes in palliative care patients."

This still may not have been enough to completely reverse mild to moderate dehydration though.
Anonymous said…
I have come to believe that at the end of life the ethical dilemma is to "do no harm." when we know that there is nothing more that we can do medically for the patient. Isn't that what is imparted to the patient and family. Thus, it is more important than the one liter of fluid that is given to the patient. It is the number of IV initiations and sticks that cause pain, the number of times the patient has to be suctioned, or the breaks in the skin caused by incontinence of bowel or bladder. So why we debate IV hydration at the end of life it may need to be shrouded by "do no harm".

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Advance Care Planning before Major Surgery: A Podcast with Vicky Tang

This week's podcast is all about the intersection of geriatrics, palliative care, advanced care planning and surgery with our guest Dr. Vicky Tang.  Vicky is an assistant professor and researcher here at UCSF.  We talk about her local and national efforts focused on this intersection, including:
Her JAMA Surgery article that showed 3 out of 4 older adults undergoing high risk surgery had no advance care planning (ACP) documentation. Prehab clinics and how ACP fits into these clinicsThe Geriatric Surgery Verification Quality Improvement Program whose goal is to set the standards for geriatric surgical care including ACP discussions prior to surgeryHow frailty fits in and how to assess it (including this paper from JAGS on the value of the chair raise test) So take a listen and check out some of those links.  For those who want to take a deeper dive into how GeriPal and surgery fit together, check out these other podcasts: Zara Cooper on Trauma Surgery, Geriatrics, and Palliative Car…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …