Use of Artificial Hydration at the End of Life: A Survey of Australian and New Zealand Palliative Medicine Doctors

Dying is ubiquitous, yet the optimal management of hydration in the terminal phase is undetermined. Palliative care (PC) doctors' practices may act as a de facto measure of the benefits and burdens of artificial hydration (AH) use. To identify PC doctors' AH prescribing practices for imminently dying patients and possible influencing factors. An online survey of doctors belonging to the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine. One hundred and thirty-six surveys were completed (30% response rate). AH use for patients in the prognosticated last week of life was low: 77% of respondents prescribed AH to 0-10% of patients and 3% of respondents prescribed to more than 20%. The most common reason for prescribing AH was palliation of family/patient concern rather than a physical symptom. The majority thought there was no effect of AH on survival, or on symptoms of fatigue (90%), reduced level of consciousness (88%), agitation (75%), nausea (69%), vomiting (68%), myoclonus (66%), thirst (65%), delirium (62%), cough (57%), or bowel obstruction (50%). AH was thought to worsen subcutaneous edema (94%), upper respiratory tract secretions (85%), ascites (73%), physical discomfort (72%), dyspnea (62%), and urinary symptoms (57%). PC doctors from Australia and New Zealand reported lower use of AH for dying patients compared to international counterparts. The study showed high concordance in respondents' opinions: most thought AH was unlikely to provide clinical benefit and might cause harm. Further studies are needed to determine best practice of AH use at the end of life.