A case for stopping the early withdrawal of life sustaining therapies in patients with devastating brain injuries

Beliefs of physician directors on the management of devastating brain injuries at the Canadian emergency department and intensive care unit interface: a national site-level survey

PURPOSE

Insufficient evidence-based recommendations to guide care for patients with devastating brain injuries (DBIs) leave patients vulnerable to inconsistent practice at the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) interface. We sought to characterize the beliefs of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) physician site directors regarding current management practices for patients with DBI.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM and CCM physician directors of adult EDs and ICUs across Canada (December 2022 to March 2023). Our primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who manage (or consult on) patients with DBI in the ED. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare beliefs of EM and CCM physicians.

RESULTS

Of 303 eligible respondents, we received 98 (32%) completed surveys (EM physician directors, 46; CCM physician directors, 52). Most physician directors reported participating in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients with DBI in the ED (80%, n = 78), but 63% of these (n = 62) said this was infrequent. Physician directors reported that existing neuroprognostication methods are rarely sufficient to support WLSM in the ED (49%, n = 48) and believed that an ICU stay is required to improve confidence (99%, n = 97). Most (96%, n = 94) felt that providing caregiver visitation time prior to WLSM was a valid reason for ICU admission.

CONCLUSION

In our survey of Canadian EM and CCM physician directors, 80% participated in WLSM in the ED for patients with DBI. Despite this, most supported ICU admission to optimize neuroprognostication and patient-centred end-of-life care, including organ donation.

EISOR Delivery: Regional experience with sharing equipe, equipment & expertise to increase cDCD donor pool in time of pandemic

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) programs are expanding in Europe, in the attempt to expand donors pool. Even in controlled DCD donors, however, a protracted warm ischemia time occurring in the perimortem period might damage organs, making these unsuitable for transplantation. Implementing a strategy of extracorporeal interval support for organ retrieval (EISOR), a regional reperfusion with normothermic, oxygenated blood provides a physiologic environment allowing extensive assessment of potential grafts, and potentially promotes recovery of native function. Here we report the results of a multi-center retrospective cohort study including 29 Maastricht Category III controlled DCD donors undergoing extracorporeal support in a regional DCD/EISOR Training Center, and in the network of referring In-Training Centers, under the liaison of the regional Transplant Coordination Center during COVID-19 pandemic, between March 2020 and November 2021. The study aims to understand whether a mobile, experienced EISOR team implementing a consistent technique and sharing its equipe, expertise and equipment in a regional network of hospitals, might be effective and efficient in implementing the regional DCD program activity even in a highly stressed healthcare system.

Impact of early percutaneous dilatative tracheostomy in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage on main cerebral, hemodynamic, and respiratory variables: A prospective observational study

Introduction

Patients with poor-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) often require prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation due to prolonged time to obtain neurological recovery. Impairment of consciousness and airway protective mechanisms usually require tracheostomy during the ICU stay to facilitate weaning from sedation, promote neurological assessment, and reduce mechanical ventilation (MV) duration and associated complications. Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) is the technique of choice for performing a tracheostomy. However, it could be associated with particular risks in neurocritical care patients, potentially increasing the risk of secondary brain damage.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, prospective, observational study aimed to assess PDT-associated variations in main cerebral, hemodynamic, and respiratory variables, the occurrence of tracheostomy-related complications, and their relationship with outcomes in adult patients with SAH admitted to the ICU of a neurosurgery/neurocritical care hub center after aneurysm control through clipping or coiling and undergoing early PDT.

Results

We observed a temporary increase in ICP during early PDT; this increase was statistically significant in patients presenting with higher therapy intensity level (TIL) at the time of the procedural. The episodes of intracranial hypertension were brief, and appeared mainly due to the activation of cerebral autoregulatory mechanisms in patients with impaired compensatory mechanisms and compliance.

Discussion

The low number of observed complications might be related to our organizational strategy, all based on a dedicated "tracheo-team" implementing both PDT following a strictly defined protocol and accurate follow-up.

Increasing Solid Organ Donation: A Role for Emergency Physicians

BACKGROUND

More than 100,000 Americans with failing organs await transplantation, mostly from dead donors. Yet only a fraction of patients declared dead by neurological criteria (DNC) become organ donors.

DISCUSSION

Emergency physicians (EPs) can improve solid organ donation in the following ways: providing perimortem critical care support to potential organ donors, promptly notifying organ procurement organizations (OPOs), asking neurocritical care specialists to evaluate selected emergency department patients for death based on established neurologic criteria, participating in research to advance these developments, implementing automatic OPO notification technologies, and educating the professional and lay communities about organ donation and transplantation, including exploration of opt-out (presumed consent) organ recovery policies.

CONCLUSION

With future improvements in organ preservation and DNC assessment, EPs may become even more involved in the donation process. EPs should support and engage in efforts to promote organ donation and transplantation.

Brain herniation on computed tomography is a poor predictor of whether patients with a devastating brain injury can be confirmed dead using neurological criteria

Background

It is unclear if the presence of compartmental brain herniation on neuroimaging should be a prerequisite to the clinical confirmation of death using neurological criteria. The World Brain Death Project has posed this as a research question.

Methods

The final computed tomography of the head scans before death of 164 consecutive patients confirmed dead using neurological criteria and 41 patients with devastating brain injury who died following withdrawal of life sustaining treatment were assessed by a neuroradiologist to compare the incidence of herniation and other features of cerebral swelling.

Results

There was no difference in the incidence of herniation in patients confirmed dead using neurological criteria and those with devastating brain injury (79% vs 76%, OR 1.23 95%, CI 0.56-2.67). The sensitivity and specificity of brain herniation in patients confirmed dead using neurological criteria was 79% and 24%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive value was 81% and 23%, respectively. The most sensitive computed tomography of the head findings for death using neurological criteria were diffuse sulcal effacement (93%) and basal cistern effacement (91%) and the most specific finding was loss of grey-white differentiation (80%). The only features with a significantly different incidence between the death using neurological criteria group and the devastating brain injury group were loss of grey-white differentiation (46 vs 20%, OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.55-8.17) and presence of contralateral ventricular dilatation (24 vs 44%, OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.84).

Conclusions

Neuroimaging is essential in establishing the cause of death using neurological criteria. However, the presence of brain herniation or other signs of cerebral swelling are poor predictors of whether a patient will satisfy the clinical criteria for death using neurological criteria or not. The decision to test must remain a clinical one.

Ethical Issues Related to Donation and Transplantation of Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death Donors

With the continuing disparity between organ supply to match the increasing demand for kidney transplants in patients with renal failure, donation after the circulatory determination of death (DCDD) has become an important and increasing global source of kidneys for clinical use. The concern that the outcomes of controlled DCDD donor kidney transplants were inferior to those obtained from donors declared dead by neurologic criteria has largely diminished because large-scale registry and single-center reports consistently have reported favorable outcomes. For uncontrolled DCDD kidney transplants, outcomes are correspondingly acceptable, although there is a greater risk of primary nonfunction. The potential of DCDD remains unrealized in many countries because of the ethical concerns and resource implications in the utilization of these donor kidneys for transplantation. In this review, we discuss the origin and definitions of DCDD donors, and examine the long-term outcomes of transplants from DCDD donor kidneys. We discuss the controversies, challenges, and ethical and legal barriers in the acceptance of DCDD, including the complexities of implementing and sustaining controlled and uncontrolled DCDD donor programs. The lessons learned from global leaders will assist a wider international recognition, acceptance, and development of DCDD transplant programs that will noticeably facilitate and address the global shortages of kidneys for transplantation, and ensure the opportunity for people who had indicated their desires to become organ donors fulfill their final wishes.

CAEP Position Statement - Management of devastating brain injuries in the emergency department: Enhancing neuroprognostication and maintaining the opportunity for organ and tissue donation

The primary purpose of this statement is to improve neuroprognostication after devastating brain injury (DBI), with a secondary benefit of potential organ and tissue donation.

Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative

A decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is derived by a conclusion that further treatment will not enable a patient to survive or will not produce a functional outcome with acceptable quality of life that the patient and the treating team regard as beneficial. Although many hospitalized patients die under such circumstances, controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) programs have been developed only in a reduced number of countries. This International Collaborative Statement aims at expanding cDCDD in the world to help countries progress towards self-sufficiency in transplantation and offer more patients the opportunity of organ donation. The Statement addresses three fundamental aspects of the cDCDD pathway. First, it describes the process of determining a prognosis that justifies the WLST, a decision that should be prior to and independent of any consideration of organ donation and in which transplant professionals must not participate. Second, the Statement establishes the permanent cessation of circulation to the brain as the standard to determine death by circulatory criteria. Death may be declared after an elapsed observation period of 5 min without circulation to the brain, which confirms that the absence of circulation to the brain is permanent. Finally, the Statement highlights the value of perfusion repair for increasing the success of cDCDD organ transplantation. cDCDD protocols may utilize either in situ or ex situ perfusion consistent with the practice of each country. Methods to accomplish the in situ normothermic reperfusion of organs must preclude the restoration of brain perfusion to not invalidate the determination of death.

Determining the impact of timing and of clinical factors during end-of-life decision-making in potential controlled donation after circulatory death donors

Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) occurs after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and subsequent family approach and approval for donation. We currently lack data on factors that impact the decision-making process on withdraw life-sustaining treatment and whether time from admission to family approach, influences family consent rates. Such insights could be important in improving the clinical practice of potential cDCD donors. In a prospective multicenter observational study, we evaluated the impact of timing and of the clinical factors during the end-of-life decision-making process in potential cDCD donors. Characteristics and medication use of 409 potential cDCD donors admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) were assessed. End-of-life decision-making was made after a mean time of 97 hours after ICU admission and mostly during the day. Intracranial hemorrhage or ischemic stroke and a high APACHE IV score were associated with a short decision-making process. Preserved brainstem reflexes, high Glasgow Coma Scale scores, or cerebral infections were associated with longer time to decision-making. Our data also suggest that the organ donation request could be made shortly after the decision to stop active treatment and consent rates were not influenced by daytime or nighttime or by the duration of the ICU stay.

Prediction Model for Timing of Death in Potential Donors After Circulatory Death (DCD III): Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Background

Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is a major source of organs for transplantation. A potential cDCD donor poses considerable challenges in terms of identification of those dying within the predefined time frame of warm ischemia after withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) to circulatory arrest. Several attempts have been made to develop models predicting the time between treatment withdrawal and circulatory arrest. This time window determines whether organ donation can occur and influences the quality of the donated organs. However, the selected patients used for these models were not always restricted to potential cDCD donors (eg, patients with cancer or severe infections were also included). This severely limits the generalizability of those data.

Objective

The objectives of this study are the following: (1) to develop a model predicting time to death within 60 minutes in potential cDCD patients; (2) to validate and update previous prediction models on time to death after WLST; (3) to determine timing and patient characteristics that are associated with prognostication and the decision-making process that leads to initiating end-of-life care; (4) to evaluate the impact of timing of family approach on organ donation approval; and (5) to assess the influence of variation in WLST processes on postmortem organ donor potential and actual postmortem organ donors.

Methods

In this multicenter observational prospective cohort study, all patients admitted to the intensive care unit of 3 university hospitals and 3 teaching hospitals who met the criteria of the cDCD protocol as defined by the Dutch Transplant Foundation were included. The target of enrolment was set to 400 patients. Previously developed models will be refitted in our data set. To further update previous prediction models, we will apply least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) as a tool for efficient variable selection to develop the multivariable logistic regression model.

Results

This protocol was funded in August 2014 by the Dutch Transplant Foundation. We expect to have the results of this study in July 2020. Patient enrolment was completed in July 2018 and data collection was completed in April 2020.

Conclusions

This study will provide a robust multimodal prediction model, based on clinical and physiological parameters, that can predict time to circulatory arrest in cDCD donors. In addition, it will add valuable insight in the process of WLST in cDCD donors and will fill an important knowledge gap in this essential field of health care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04123275; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04123275

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/16733

The Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Approach for Potential Organ Donors in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation process of a multidisciplinary approach for potential organ donors in the emergency department (ED) in order to incorporate organ donation into their end-of-life care plans.

METHODS

A new multidisciplinary approach was implemented in 6 hospitals in The Netherlands between January 2016 and January 2018. The approach was introduced during staff meetings in the ED, intensive care unit (ICU), and neurology department. When patients with a devastating brain injury had a futile prognosis in the ED, without contraindications for organ donation, an ICU admission was considered. Every ICU admission to incorporate organ donation into end-of-life care was systematically evaluated with the involved physicians using a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 55 potential organ donors were admitted to the ICU to incorporate organ donation into end-of-life care. Twenty-seven families consented to donation and 20 successful organ donations were performed. Twenty-nine percent of the total pool of organ donors in these hospitals were admitted to the ICU for organ donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a devastating brain injury and futile medical prognosis in the ED are an important proportion of the total number of donors. The implementation of a multidisciplinary approach is feasible and could lead to better identification of potential donors in the ED.

A Fate Worse Than Death: Prognostication of Devastating Brain Injury

OBJECTIVES

To describe the sources of uncertainty in prognosticating devastating brain injury, the role of the intensivist in prognostication, and ethical considerations in prognosticating devastating brain injury in the ICU.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed literature review was performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles relevant to prognosis in intracerebral hemorrhage, acute ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and postcardiac arrest anoxic encephalopathy were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data regarding definition and prognosis of devastating brain injury were extracted. Themes related to how clinicians perform prognostication and their accuracy were reviewed and extracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although there are differences in pathophysiology and therefore prognosis in the various etiologies of devastating brain injury, some common themes emerge. Physicians tend to have fairly good prognostic accuracy, especially in severe cases with poor prognosis. Full supportive care is recommended for at least 72 hours from initial presentation to maximize the potential for recovery and minimize secondary injury. However, physician approaches to the timing of and recommendations for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy have a significant impact on mortality from devastating brain injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensivists should consider the modern literature describing prognosis for devastating brain injury and provide appropriate time for patient recovery and for discussions with the patient's surrogates. Surrogates wish to have a prognosis enumerated even when uncertainty exists. These discussions must be handled with care and include admission of uncertainty when it exists. Respect for patient autonomy remains paramount, although physicians are not required to provide inappropriate medical therapies.

Neurocritical care physicians' doubt about whether to withdraw life-sustaining treatment the first days after devastating brain injury: an interview study

Background

Multilevel uncertainty exists in the treatment of devastating brain injury and variation in end-of-life decision-making is a concern. Cognitive and emotional doubt linked to making challenging decisions have not received much attention. The aim of this study was to explore physicians´ doubt related to decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment within the first 72 h after devastating brain injury and to identify the strategies used to address doubt.

Method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 neurocritical care physicians in a Norwegian trauma centre (neurosurgeons, intensivists and rehabilitation specialists) followed by a qualitative thematic analysis.

Result

All physicians described feelings of doubt. The degree of doubt and how they dealt with it varied. Institutional culture, ethics climate and individual physicians´ values, experiences and emotions seemed to impact judgements and decisions. Common strategies applied by physicians across specialities when dealing with uncertainty and doubt were: 1. Provision of treatment trials 2. Using time as a coping strategy 3. Collegial counselling and interdisciplinary consensus seeking 4. Framing decisions as purely medical.

Conclusion

Decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment after devastating brain injury are crafted in a stepwise manner. Feelings of doubt are frequent and seem to be linked to the recognition of fallibility. Doubt can be seen as positive and can foster open-mindedness towards the view of others, which is one of the prerequisites for a good ethical climate. Doubt in this context tends to be mitigated by open interdisciplinary discussions acknowledging doubt as rational and a normal feature of complex decision-making.

Intensive care for organ preservation: A four-stage pathway

Objective

Intensive care for organ preservation (ICOP) is defined as the initiation or pursuit of intensive care not to save the patient's life, but to protect and optimize organs for transplantation.

Analysis

When a patient has devastating brain injury that might progress to organ donation this can be conceptualized as evolving through four consecutive stages: (1) instability, (2) stability, (3) futility and (4) finality. ICOP might be applied at any of these stages, raising different ethical issues. Only in the stage of finality is the switch from neurointensive care to ICOP ethically justified.

Conclusion

The difference between the stages is that during instability, stability and futility the focus must be neurointensive care which seeks the patient's recovery or an accurate neurological prognostication, while finality focuses on withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and commencement of comfort care, which may include ICOP for deceased donation.

Management of donation after brain death (DBD) in the ICU: the potential donor is identified, what's next?

The success of any donation process requires that potential brain-dead donors (PBDD) are detected and referred early to professionals responsible for their evaluation and conversion to actual donors. The intensivist plays a crucial role in organ donation. However, identification and referral of PBDDs may be suboptimal in the critical care environment. Factors influencing lower rates of detection and referral include the lack of specific training and the need to provide concomitant urgent care to other critically ill patients. Excellent communication between the ICU staff and the procurement organization is necessary to ensure the optimization of both the number and quality of organs transplanted. The organ donation process has been improved over the last two decades with the involvement and commitment of many healthcare professionals. Clinical protocols have been developed and implemented to better organize the multidisciplinary approach to organ donation. In this manuscript, we aim to highlight the main steps of organ donation, taking into account the following: early identification and evaluation of the PBDD with the use of checklists; donor management, including clinical maintenance of the PBDD with high-quality intensive care to prevent graft failure in recipients and strategies for optimizing donated organs by simplified care standards, clinical guidelines and alert tools; the key role of the intensivist in the donation process with the interaction between ICU professionals and transplant coordinators, nurse protocol managers, and communication skills training; and a final remark on the importance of the development of research with further insight into brain death pathophysiology and reversible organ damage.

Admission to Intensive Care for Palliative Care or Potential Organ Donation: Demographics, Circumstances, Outcomes, and Resource Use

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

To describe the characteristics, circumstances, change over time, resource use, and outcomes of patients admitted to ICUs in Australia and New Zealand for the purposes of “palliative care of a dying patient” or “potential organ donation,” and compare with actively managed ICU patients.

Design:

A retrospective study of data from the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database and a nested cohort analysis of a single center.

Setting:

One hundred seventy-seven ICUs in Australia and New Zealand and a nested analysis of one university-affiliated hospital ICU in Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Patients:

Three thousand seven hundred “palliative care of a dying patient” and 1,115 “potential organ donation” patients from 2007 to 2016. The nested cohort included 192 patients.

Interventions:

No interventions. Data extracted included patient demographics, diagnoses, length of stay, circumstances, and outcome of admission.

Measurements and Main Results:

ICU admissions for “palliative care of a dying patient” and “potential organ donation” increased from 179 in 2007 to 551 in 2016 and from 44 in 2007 to 174 in 2016 in each respective group, though only the “potential organ donation” cohort showed an increase in proportion of total ICU admissions. Lengths of stay in ICU were a mean of 33.8 hours (median, 17.5; interquartile range, 6.4–38.8) and 44.7 hours (26.6; 16.0–44.6), respectively, compared with 74.2 hours (41.5; 21.7–77.0) in actively managed patients. Hospital mortality was 86.6% and 95.9%, respectively. In the nested cohort of 192 patients, facilitating family discussions about goals of treatment and organ donation represented the most common reason for ICU admission.

Conclusions:

Patients admitted to ICU to manage end-of-life care represent a small proportion of overall ICU admissions, with an increasing proportion of “potential organ donation” admissions. They have shorter ICU lengths of stay than actively managed patients, suggesting resource use for these patients is not disproportionate.

Treatment-limiting decisions in patients with severe traumatic brain injury in a Norwegian regional trauma center

Background

Treatment-limiting decisions (TLD) for severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) have been sparsely studied. This study determine prevalence, main reason for, categories and timing of TLDs in a Norwegian regional trauma setting.

Methods

A retrospective study of a 2-year cohort of 579 sTBI patients admitted to Oslo University Hospital (OUH). Prospectively collected data in the OUH Trauma Registry were combined with retrospective data from a chart review regarding TLDs.

Results

TLDs were documented for 101/579 sTBI patients (17%). The situation was evaluated as futile in 59 cases and as potentially inappropriate in 42 cases. The three most frequent types of TLDs were withholding of neurosurgery, do not resuscitate orders and withdrawing of organ support. In 70% of cases, the first TLD was made within 2 days after injury, while in 14%, the first TLD was made later than day 7. Twenty percent (20/101) of the first TLDs were later adjusted, revoked in 4 patients and broadening of TLDs in 16 patients. The median time from the decision to death was 2 days (range 1–652). TLDs were documented in 93% of in-hospital death cases (n = 79). In-hospital deaths occurred in 73% of TLD group cases and 1% of non-TLD group cases. Family interaction and multi-team discussions were documented in >88% of cases, but no advanced directives were found, and notifications of patients’ preferences were found in only 7% of cases.

Discussion

Clinicians should consider limiting treatment if continued treatment is not in the patients best interest. A range of different types of TLDs were applied for patients after sTBI in the trauma hospital setting.

Conclusion

TLDs were found in 17% of sTBI patients. Value considerations behind TLDs in this care context need to be further explored.