Responses

What is the impact of clinically assisted hydration in the last days of life? A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Letter to the Editor in response to "What is the impact of clinically assisted hydration in the last days of life?A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis"
    • Andrew Davies, Professor of Palliative Medicine Academic Department of Palliative Medicine, Our Lady's Hospice, Harold's Cross, Dublin D6W RY72
    • Other Contributors:
      • Niamh Mairead Cleary, Clinical lecturer

    Dear Editor

    We read with particular interest the recent systematic review and narrative synthesis of clinically assisted hydration in the last days of life [1]. Unsurprisingly, the authors concluded that “there is currently insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions on the impact of CAH in the last days of life”, which supports the findings of previous reviews [2,3]. We agree with their conclusion, but would like to make some comments on the “quality” / applicability of some of the included (and excluded) studies.

    Our concerns relate to:

    1. Study type – end-of-life care should be evidence based, and the “gold standard” remains the randomised controlled trial (RCT).

    2. Study population – our study [4] excluded patients with dehydration (and with contraindications to CAH), but the Cerchetti et al RCT [5] involved patients with dehydration and renal failure, and the “excluded” Bruera et al RCT [6] specifically involved patients with dehydration. Hence, there is an issue about collating these data, and, importantly, extrapolating these data to the wider population.

    3. Study intervention – our study [4] used a variable volume of fluid, based on the patient’s weight (and in accordance with NICE guidance) [7], but the Cerchetti et al RCT [5], and the Bruera et al RCT [6], both used a fixed volume of fluid (e.g. 1 L / day). The rationale for this volume of fluid is unexplained, but it is much less than recommended for maintenance of hydration...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.