Purpose: To investigate the characteristics of sudden abdominal condition change that occur in a palliative care unit, we evaluated the association between these conditions and family acceptance at time of death. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 30 terminally ill cancer patients who died of sudden abdominal condition change in our unit between January 2010 and March 2013. We focused particularly on the course of sudden change, symptom relief, explanation of the condition, and family acceptance at time of death. Results: The average time from onset of sudden change in abdominal condition until death was 20.6 hours and the median was 13 hours. Of the 30 total cases, 23 occurred in less than 24 hours. Frequent symptoms during the sudden change were abdominal pain in 28 patients, decreased blood pressure in 21, lowering of consciousness in 12 and disturbed behavior/excitement in 10. Impending symptoms were observed in 18 patients. For patients with good acceptance by family at time of death (21 patients), symptom relief was significantly better, frequency of disturbed behavior/excitement was significantly less, and prior specific explanation was significantly frequent, compared to the poor acceptance group (9 patients). The good acceptance group tended to be have a longer hospital stay, as well as longer time between sudden change and death. Conclusions: Death by sudden abdominal condition change came within 24 hours in a majority of cases. We consider that prior detailed explanation and improving symptom relief helps improve family acceptance.

We show two cases of embryonal carcinoma and discuss the results treatment in this paper. Although the progress of this malignant tumor after treatment was not related to the stadium of the progress of disease, it was found related to the amount of serum AFP and to the immaturity of this neoplasm. In view of the latent metastasis, the combination chemotherapy with Cisplatin was deemed necessary. The dose intensity must be kept 1. Also, we considered it necessary to prescribe the medicine to the patients more than 6 cycles.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to clarify the factors contributing to the evaluation of perceived care in inpatient palliative care services from the aspect of informal caregiver after their loss of the patient to cancer. Method: A questionnaire was mailed to 9,684 bereaved subjects who had lost family members at one of 103 palliative care units in Japan to evaluate their sociodemographic characteristics and the evaluation of perceived care. An institution survey was performed to collect organization-related variables. The evaluation of perceived care was rated by the Care Evalutaion Scale (CES), the Good Death Inventory (GDI) and single item of overall satisfation. Result: A total of 5,810 responses were analyzed (response rate＝60％). Uni-variate and multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the determinants of each scale. Significant determinants of the score in the evaluation of care identified were: the rate of private room (100％), independent facility, palliative care physician being night-time duty, the number of nurses at night (＞0.1 per bed), sending a letter to every bereaved family, holding a memorial services for every bereaved family and having a religious background. Conclusion: In conclusion, the evaluation of palliative care from the aspect of informal caregiver was influenced by various organization-related variables.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.