Further, that competency should also include its corollary – to c

Further, that competency should also include its corollary – to consider the withdrawing of active medical care such as antibiotics, inotropes,

parenteral feeding and, ultimately, dialysis itself. Failure to do this or procrastination in this process of recognition may result in neither the clinicians nor the family being prepared for the possibility of death. That unpreparedness may have a significant impact on the bereavement of the family. The other clinical scenario that may Selleck SAHA HDAC unfold is the patient with concurrent ESKD on dialysis and metastatic malignancy. Reaching a point in the trajectory of the underlying malignancy where active treatment, including the process of dialysis itself, becomes more burdensome and less sustainable, is a matter of careful clinical judgement and negotiation with the patient. Difficulties arise if no discussion occurs, no plans set in place and a situation, already challenging, becomes driven by crisis or unrealistic expectations on behalf of the patient, family and treating clinicians. Withdrawal from dialysis is common with 467 people in Australia and 66

people in New Zealand withdrawing from dialysis in 2010 (ANZDATA (Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation) report 2011, Chapter 3). A total of 186 of the deaths in Australia and 20 of the deaths in New Zealand patients withdrawing from dialysis were recorded as due to psychosocial issues. It is important to note, as stated in the Ethics section of this paper, that the withdrawing of treatment check details that is considered inappropriate is ethically and

legally valid. It is neither suicide nor euthanasia. Nor does it constitute medical abandonment. The psychology of withdrawal for the patient and family may be fraught and requires careful and sensitive communication, coupled with an active pursuit of comfort and the appropriate management of the terminal phase or, in the context of dialysis withdrawal where the exact time C59 molecular weight of death may be indeterminate, the post-withdrawal phase leading to the patient’s death. One area of some controversy is the use of Automated Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (AICD) in patients with ESKD as a preventative measure for sudden cardiac death (SCD). There is no doubt that there is a beneficial role of an AICD for prevention of SCD in high-risk populations.[1, 2] Patients with ESKD are often excluded from pivotal AICD trials and therefore, the role of this device in the ESKD population is uncertain. Sudden cardiac death is common in ESKD and often multifactorial as a result of underlying cardiac dysfunction (hypertrophy and ischaemia) and metabolic and haemodynamic insult. In the absence of any effective medical therapy to prevent SCD in the dialysis population, the use of AICD is an attractive one. The only data available are a retrospective study showing a 42% reduction in death risk in ESKD patients with an AICD as a secondary preventative measure.

Comments are closed.