Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for End-of-Life Sedation and Agitation: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (The DREAMS Trial) (Preprint)
Authors: Thomas Benjamin , Barclay Greg , Lo Wing-Shan Angela , Mullan Judy , Mansfield Kylie 
Published: December 2023

BACKGROUND

Sedation at the end of life is used to relieve distressing symptoms including agitation and delirium. Standard care may include infused benzodiazepines or antipsychotics. These agents often result in deep sedation with loss of interaction with loved ones, which may be distressing.

OBJECTIVE

The DREAMS (Dexmedetomidine for the Reduction of End-of-life Agitation and for optiMised Sedation) trial aimed to compare the sedative and antidelirium effects of the alpha-2 agonist dexmedetomidine, a novel palliative care sedative, compared with midazolam, a benzodiazepine when administered by subcutaneous infusion at the end of life, with doses of both agents targeting lighter, or potentially interactive sedation.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from adult inpatients admitted for end-of-life care under a palliative care team in regional New South Wales, Australia. Inclusion criteria included patients older than 18 years, with a preference for lighter sedation at the end of life. Exclusion criteria included severe cardiac dysfunction (contraindication to dexmedetomidine). Participants consented and were placed on a treatment-pending list. Upon experiencing terminal deterioration, patients were randomized to either arm 1 (dexmedetomidine) or arm 2 (midazolam) as their treatment arm. These treatments were administered by continuous subcutaneous infusion. The level of consciousness and agitation of the patients were measured by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale–Palliative version and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Score. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale–Palliative version assessments were performed by both nursing and medical staff, while Memorial Delirium Assessment Score assessments were carried out by medical staff only. Families and patients were asked to complete, as able, a patient comfort assessment form, to gauge perceptions of distress. Data were collected and matched with the breakthrough medication doses administered, along with qualitative comments in the medical record. In addition, the study tracked symptoms and patient functional status that were recorded as part of the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative, a national tracking project for monitoring symptom outcomes in palliative care.

RESULTS

The DREAMS trial was funded in May 2020, approved by the ethics committee in November 2020, and started recruiting participants in May 2021. Data collection commenced in May 2021 and is anticipated to continue until December 2024. Publication of results is anticipated from 2024 to 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for sedative dosing in palliative care for distress and agitation is not robust, with standard care based primarily on clinical experience and not robust scientific evidence. This study is important because it will compare a standard and a novel sedative used in end-of-life treatment. By assessing the potential efficacy and benefits of both, it seeks to optimize the quality of dying by providing targeted sedation that can improve the communication between dying patients and their loved ones.

CLINICALTRIAL

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12621000052831; https://uat.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380889

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT

DERR1-10.2196/55129