Are providers overconfident in predicting outcome after cardiac arrest?

Emergent Management of Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

This article outlines interventions used to improve outcomes for patients with hypoxic-ischemic brain injury after cardiac arrest.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Emergent management of patients after cardiac arrest requires prevention and treatment of primary and secondary brain injury. Primary brain injury is minimized by excellent initial resuscitative efforts. Secondary brain injury prevention requires the detection and correction of many pathophysiologic processes that may develop in the hours to days after the initial arrest. Key physiologic parameters important to secondary brain injury prevention include optimization of mean arterial pressure, cerebral perfusion, oxygenation and ventilation, intracranial pressure, temperature, and cortical hyperexcitability. This article outlines recent data regarding the treatment and prevention of secondary brain injury. Different patients likely benefit from different treatment strategies, so an individualized approach to treatment and prevention of secondary brain injury is advisable. Clinicians must use multimodal sources of data to prognosticate outcomes after cardiac arrest while recognizing that all prognostic tools have shortcomings.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

Neurologists should be involved in the postarrest care of patients with hypoxic-ischemic brain injury to improve their outcomes. Postarrest care requires nuanced and patient-centered approaches to the prevention and treatment of primary and secondary brain injury and neuroprognostication.

Clinicians' approach to predicting post-cardiac arrest outcomes for patients enrolled in a United States clinical trial

PURPOSE

Perceived poor prognosis can lead to withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WLST) in patients who might otherwise recover. We characterized clinicians' approach to post-arrest prognostication in a multicenter clinical trial.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians who treated a comatose post-cardiac arrest patient enrolled in the Influence of Cooling Duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP) trial (NCT04217551). Two authors independently analyzed each interview using inductive and deductive coding. The clinician reported how they arrived at a prognosis for the specific patient. We summarized the frequency with which clinicians reported using objective diagnostics to formulate their prognosis, and compared the reported approaches to established guidelines. Each respondent provided demographic information and described local neuroprognostication practices.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 clinicians at 19 US hospitals. Most claimed adherence to local hospital neuroprognostication protocols (n = 19). Prognostication led to WLST for perceived poor neurological prognosis in 15/30 patients, of whom most showed inconsistencies with guidelines or trial recommendations, respectively. In 10/15 WLST cases, clinicians reported relying on multimodal testing. A prevalent theme was the use of "clinical gestalt," defined as prognosticating based on a patient's overall appearance or a subjective impression in the absence of objective data. Many clinicians (21/30) reported using clinical gestalt for initial prognostication, with 9/21 expressing high confidence initially.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians in our study state they follow neuroprognostication guidelines in general but often do not do so in actual practice. They reported clinical gestalt frequently informed early, highly confident prognostic judgments, and few objective tests changed initial impressions. Subjective prognostication may undermine well-designed trials.

Prediction of survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the updated Swedish cardiac arrest risk score (SCARS) model

Aims

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major health concern worldwide. Although one-third of all patients achieve a return of spontaneous circulation and may undergo a difficult period in the intensive care unit, only 1 in 10 survive. This study aims to improve our previously developed machine learning model for early prognostication of survival in OHCA.

Methods and results

We studied all cases registered in the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Registry during 2010 and 2020 (n = 55 615). We compared the predictive performance of extreme gradient boosting (XGB), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), logistic regression, CatBoost, random forest, and TabNet. For each framework, we developed models that optimized (i) a weighted F1 score to penalize models that yielded more false negatives and (ii) a precision-recall area under the curve (PR AUC). LightGBM assigned higher importance values to a larger set of variables, while XGB made predictions using fewer predictors. The area under the curve receiver operating characteristic (AUC ROC) scores for LightGBM were 0.958 (optimized for weighted F1) and 0.961 (optimized for a PR AUC), while for XGB, the scores were 0.958 and 0.960, respectively. The calibration plots showed a subtle underestimation of survival for LightGBM, contrasting with a mild overestimation for XGB models. In the crucial range of 0-10% likelihood of survival, the XGB model, optimized with the PR AUC, emerged as a clinically safe model.

Conclusion

We improved our previous prediction model by creating a parsimonious model with an AUC ROC at 0.96, with excellent calibration and no apparent risk of underestimating survival in the critical probability range (0-10%). The model is available at www.gocares.se.

Cognitive Biases and Shared Decision Making in Acute Brain Injury

Many patients hospitalized after severe acute brain injury are comatose and require life-sustaining therapies. Some of these patients make favorable recoveries with continued intensive care, while others do not. In addition to providing medical care, clinicians must guide surrogate decision makers through high-stakes, emotionally charged decisions about whether to continue life-sustaining therapies. These consultations require clinicians first to assess a patient's likelihood of recovery given continued life-sustaining therapies (i.e., prognosticate), then to communicate that prediction to surrogates, and, finally, to elicit and interpret the patient's preferences. At each step, both clinicians and surrogates are vulnerable to flawed decision making. Clinicians can be imprecise, biased, and overconfident when prognosticating after brain injury. Surrogates can misperceive the choice and misunderstand or misrepresent a patient's wishes, which may never have been communicated clearly. These biases can undermine the ability to reach choices congruent with patients' preferences through shared decision making (SDM). Decision science has extensively studied these biases. In this article, we apply that research to improving SDM for patients who are comatose after acute brain injury. After introducing SDM and the medical context, we describe principal decision science results as they relate to neurologic prognostication and end-of-life decisions, by both clinicians and surrogates. Based on research regarding general processes that can produce imprecise, biased, and overconfident prognoses, we propose interventions that could improve SDM, supporting clinicians and surrogates in making these challenging decisions.

Paucity of neuroprognostic testing after cardiac arrest in the United States

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies for perceived poor neurological prognosis is the most common cause of death for patients hospitalized after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Accurate neuroprognostication is challenging and high stakes, so guidelines recommend multimodality testing. We quantified the frequency and timing with which guideline recommended diagnostics were acquired prior to in-hospital death after cardiac arrest.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Optum® deidentified Electronic Health Record dataset for 2010 to 2021. We included in-hospital decedents admitted after resuscitation from non-traumatic cardiac arrest. We quantified the number of decedents who underwent head computed tomographic imaging, electroencephalography, somatosensory evoked potentials, brain magnetic resonance imaging, or evaluation by a neurologist, as well as the timing of these tests.

RESULTS

Of 34,585 included patients, median age was 66 [interquartile range 53 - 79] years and 13,609 (39%) were female. Median hospital length of stay was 0 days [0-1] days, and only 16% of deaths occurred on or after day three. Only 3,245 patients (9%) had at least one neurodiagnostic test acquired and only 1,708 (5%) were evaluated by a neurologist. The most common neurological diagnostic test to be obtained was CT imaging, acquired in 3,004 (9%) of the overall cohort. Only 852 patients (2%) of patients had at least two diagnostic modalities obtained.

DISCUSSION

In this retrospective cohort, we found few patients hospitalized after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest underwent guideline-recommended prognostic testing. If validated in prospective cohorts with more granular clinical information, better guideline adherence and more frequent use of multimodality neuroprognostication offer an opportunity to improve quality of post-arrest care.

Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Comatose Adult Survivors of Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND

Among cardiac arrest survivors, about half remain comatose 72 h following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Prognostication of poor neurological outcome in this population may result in withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and death. The objective of this article is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling surrogates of comatose cardiac arrest survivors.

METHODS

A narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, which included clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of evidence. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: "When counseling surrogates of comatose adult survivors of cardiac arrest, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of poor functional outcome assessed at 3 months or later?" Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower-quality studies. Following construction of the evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.

RESULTS

Eleven candidate clinical variables and three prediction models were selected based on clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of literature. A total of 72 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. Good practice recommendations include waiting 72 h following ROSC/rewarming prior to neuroprognostication, avoiding sedation or other confounders, the use of multimodal assessment, and an extended period of observation for awakening in patients with an indeterminate prognosis, if consistent with goals of care. The bilateral absence of pupillary light response > 72 h from ROSC and the bilateral absence of N20 response on somatosensory evoked potential testing were identified as reliable predictors. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain > 48 h from ROSC and electroencephalography > 72 h from ROSC were identified as moderately reliable predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of poor outcome in the context of counseling surrogates of comatose survivors of cardiac arrest and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered reliable or moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence.

Parents’ New Role and Needs During the COVID-19 Educational Emergency

This article contributes to the on-going discussion of parental involvement in the education of children, with emphasis on new and unfamiliar roles of parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case study undertaken focuses on parents of first graders who belong to non-vulnerable and vulnerable social groups, and the first-grade teachers of a public primary school in the north of Greece. Research questions address the experience of ‘parents–teachers’, the need for technological tools and the required digital literacy, as well as the impact of homeschooling on the wellbeing of the family unit. Data were collected using semi-structured individual interviews. The data analysis shows that parents of both social groups took on the role of the teacher to accommodate the learning challenges of first graders. Mothers from vulnerable groups, in particular, encountered various challenges when attempting to support their children mainly in language lessons. Regarding the use of new technologies, the pandemic found parents of both groups unprepared and unfamiliar with the process of distance education. Stress and worry were the dominant emotions from the very start of homeschooling during the early stages of the pandemic while towards the end of the first lockdown, exhaustion overwhelmed parents and pupils. The article concludes with emphasizing the importance of active parental involvement and coaching that enables parents to contribute substantially to their children’s education in emergency situations.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Disorders of Consciousness: A Focus on Traumatic and Anoxic Brain Injury

Palliative care (PC) teams commonly encounter patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) following anoxic or traumatic brain injury (TBI). Primary teams may consult PC to help surrogates in making treatment choices for these patients. PC clinicians must understand the complexity of predicting neurologic outcomes, address clinical nihilism, and appropriately guide surrogates in making decisions that are concordant with patients' goals. The purpose of this article was to provide PC providers with a better understanding of caring for patients with DOC, specifically following anoxic or TBI. Many of the tips acknowledge the uncertainty of DOC and provide strategies to help tackle this dilemma.

Physicians' cognitive approach to prognostication after cardiac arrest

OBJECTIVE

Elucidate how physicians formulate a neurological prognosis after cardiac arrest and compare differences between experts and general providers.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with experts in post-arrest care and general physicians. We created an initial model and interview guide based on professional society guidelines. Two authors independently coded interviews based on this initial model, then identified new topics not included in it. To describe individual physicians' cognitive approach to prognostication, we created a graphical representation. We summarized these individual "mental models" into a single overall model, as well as two models stratified by expertise.

RESULTS

We performed 36 interviews (17 experts and 19 generalists), most of whom practice in Europe (23) or North America (12). Participants described their approach to prognosis formulation as complex and iterative, with sequential and repeated data acquisition, interpretation, and prognosis formulation. Eventually, this cycle results in a final prognosis and treatment recommendation. Commonly mentioned factors were diagnostic test performance, time from arrest, patient characteristics. Participants also discussed factors rarely discussed in prognostication research including physician and hospital characteristics. We found no substantial differences between experts and general physicians.

CONCLUSION

Physicians' cognitive approach to neurologic prognostication is complex and influenced by many factors, including some rarely considered in current research. Understanding these processes better could inform interventions designed to aid physicians in prognostication.

Prognostication of patients in coma after cardiac arrest: Public perspectives

AIM

To elicit preferences for prognostic information, attitudes towards withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) and perspectives on acceptable quality of life after post-anoxic coma within the adult general population of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United States of America.

METHODS

A web-based survey, consisting of questions on respondent characteristics, perspectives on quality of life, communication of prognostic information, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, was taken by adult respondents recruited from four countries. Statistical analysis included descriptive analysis and chi2-tests for differences between countries.

RESULTS

In total, 2012 respondents completed the survey. In each country, at least 84% indicated they would prefer to receive early prognostic information. If a poor outcome was predicted with some uncertainty, 37-54% of the respondents indicated that WLST was not to be allowed. A conscious state with severe physical and cognitive impairments was perceived as acceptable quality of life by 17-44% of the respondents. Clear differences between countries exist, including respondents from the U.S. being more likely to allow WLST than respondents from Germany (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001) or the Netherlands (OR = 1.74, p < 0.001) and preferring to stay alive in a conscious state with severe physical and cognitive impairments more than respondents from Italy (OR = 3.76, p < 0.001), Germany (OR = 2.21, p < 0.001), or the Netherlands (OR = 2.39, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Over one-third of the respondents considered WLST unacceptable when there is any remaining prognostic uncertainty. Respondents had a more positive perspective on acceptable quality of life after coma than what is currently considered acceptable in medical literature. This indicates a need for a closer look at the practice of WLST based on prognostic information, to ensure responsible use of novel prognostic tests.

Frequency of Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy for Perceived Poor Neurologic Prognosis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

OBJECTIVES:

To measure the frequency of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis among decedents in hospitals of different sizes and teaching statuses.

DESIGN:

We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

SETTING:

Four large teaching hospitals, four affiliated small teaching hospitals, and nine affiliated nonteaching hospitals in the United States.

PATIENTS:

We included a sample of all adult inpatient decedents between August 2017 and August 2019.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

We reviewed inpatient notes and categorized the immediately preceding circumstances as withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis, withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for nonneurologic reasons, limitations or withholding of life support or resuscitation, cardiac death despite full treatment, or brain death. Of 2,100 patients, median age was 71 years (interquartile range, 60–81 yr), median hospital length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 2–11 d), and 1,326 (63%) were treated at four large teaching hospitals. Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis occurred in 516 patients (25%) and was the sole contributing factor to death in 331 (15%). Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis was common in all hospitals: 30% of deaths at large teaching hospitals, 19% of deaths in small teaching hospitals, and 15% of deaths at nonteaching hospitals. Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis happened frequently across all hospital units. Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis contributed to one in 12 deaths in patients without a primary neurologic diagnosis. After accounting for patient and hospital characteristics, significant between-hospital variability in the odds of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis persisted.

CONCLUSIONS:

A quarter of inpatient deaths in this cohort occurred after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis. The rate of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis occurred commonly in all type of hospital settings. We observed significant unexplained variation in the odds of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived poor neurologic prognosis across participating hospitals.