One or two types of death? Attitudes of health professionals towards brain death and donation after circulatory death in three countries

This study examined health professionals' (HPs) experience, beliefs and attitudes towards brain death (BD) and two types of donation after circulatory death (DCD)--controlled and uncontrolled DCD. Five hundred and eighty-seven HPs likely to be involved in the process of organ procurement were interviewed in 14 hospitals with transplant programs in France, Spain and the US. Three potential donation scenarios--BD, uncontrolled DCD and controlled DCD--were presented to study subjects during individual face-to-face interviews. Our study has two main findings: (1) In the context of organ procurement, HPs believe that BD is a more reliable standard for determining death than circulatory death, and (2) While the vast majority of HPs consider it morally acceptable to retrieve organs from brain-dead donors, retrieving organs from DCD patients is much more controversial. We offer the following possible explanations. DCD introduces new conditions that deviate from standard medical practice, allow procurement of organs when donors' loss of circulatory function could be reversed, and raises questions about "death" as a unified concept. Our results suggest that, for many HPs, these concerns seem related in part to the fact that a rigorous brain examination is neither clinically performed nor legally required in DCD. Their discomfort could also come from a belief that irreversible loss of circulatory function has not been adequately demonstrated. If DCD protocols are to achieve their full potential for increasing organ supply, the sources of HPs' discomfort must be further identified and addressed.

Efficacy of augmentation of epidural analgesia for Caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Extension of a labour epidural for Caesarean delivery is thought to be successful in most cases and avoids the use of general anaesthesia. However, most previous studies that have estimated the failure rate of pre-existing epidural catheters were performed in small numbers of patients.

METHODS

Therefore, we undertook to retrospectively measure the failure rate of indwelling epidural catheters in a large number of patients.

RESULTS

The anaesthetic team was available at all times and was permanently led by a senior anaesthetist specialized in obstetrics. Extension was performed using lidocaine 2% with epinephrine (mean 18 (SD 6) ml), combined in most patients with sufentanil (9 (2.2) microg) and/or clonidine (75 microg). Among 194 consecutive extensions performed in a 1-yr period, general anaesthesia was required in five patients (2.6%) while sedation and/or i.v. analgesia were used in 27 patients (13.9%). In three cases where general anaesthesia was required, the interval between decision to incision was <10 min. No factor associated with failure could be identified. Addition of a lipophilic opioid or of clonidine did not modify the efficacy of the block (i.e. general anaesthesia or supplementation were required in a similar proportion).

CONCLUSIONS

The augmentation of labour epidurals for Caesarean section using lidocaine 2% plus epinephrine is a reliable and effective technique. No factor associated with failure could be identified.