[Withdrawal of life support in the permanent vegetative state, and a dignified death]. / Suspensión de soporte vital en el estado vegetativo permanente y muerte digna.

Patient relatives often request withdrawal of life support, especially artificial nutrition and hydration, in cases of permanent vegetative or minimally conscious state, and resort to court in case of disagreement. Two recent cases of withdrawal authorized by the courts concerned, one from abroad and one from Argentina, have been controversial. Although it may appear inhuman to stop feeding and hydrating such patients, to continue it only prolongs a state of irreversible biological subsistence. Families tend to increasingly accept withdrawal if the patient status remains unchanged. However, concern persists regarding the suffering that patients may undergo from onset of withdrawal till death, even though such suffering is little conceivable in the absence of cortical function and conscience content. While doctors and the layman consider ethical to withdraw life support, a nonnegligible proportion of doctors consider that vegetative state patients, even more minimally conscious state patients, do experience hunger, thirst and pain. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, strict withdrawal criteria were proposed, together with pharmacological treatment schemes for the distress arising during the withdrawal period, even though its benefit is controversial. In Argentina, two scientific societies have publicly advocated withdrawal, but not issued formal guidelines. In any case, both "dignified death" Law 26.742 and the Civil Code consent withdrawal of life support, if accompanied by appropriate relief of clinical symptoms indicating suffering.

Es frecuente que familiares directos soliciten la suspensión de soporte vital, en particular de la hidratación y nutrición asistidas, en pacientes con estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia permanente, y que recurran a la justicia en caso de desacuerdo. Dos casos recientes de suspensión, uno del exterior y otro argentino, autorizados por los tribunales respectivos, han sido motivo de controversia. Si bien puede parecer inhumano dejar de alimentar e hidratar, continuar haciéndolo solo prolonga un estado de supervivencia biológica irreversible. Las familias tienden a aceptar la suspensión si el paciente se mantiene sin cambios. Sin embargo, persiste preocupación por el posible sufrimiento desde la suspensión hasta la muerte, aunque el mismo es poco concebible en ausencia de función cortical y de conciencia. Si bien médicos y profanos consideran ético suspender el soporte vital, una cierta proporción de médicos considera que en el estado vegetativo, o más aún, en mínima conciencia, efectivamente se experimenta hambre, sed y dolor. En países como el Reino Unido, se han propuesto criterios de suspensión de soporte vital, y esquemas de tratamiento para el malestar durante el período de suspensión, aunque su beneficio efectivo es controvertido. La Argentina cuenta con recomendaciones de dos sociedades científicas, pero no con criterios reglamentados. Pero tanto la Ley 26.742 de "muerte digna" como el Código Civil consienten la suspensión del soporte vital en el estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia, si se acompaña de medidas de alivio de los síntomas clínicos que puedan significar sufrimiento.

Consensus recommendations on the management of multiple sclerosis patients in Argentina.

INTRODUCTION: During the last 20 years, multiple sclerosis (MS) disease has seen major changes with new diagnostic criteria, a better identification of disease phenotypes, individualization of disease prognosis and the appearance of new therapeutic options in relapsing remitting as well as progressive MS. As a result, the management of MS patients has become more complex and challenging. The objective of these consensus recommendations was to review how the disease should be managed in Argentina to improve long-term outcomes in MS patients. METHODS: A panel of 36 experts in neurology from Argentina, dedicated to the diagnosis and care of MS patients, gathered both virtually and in person during 2018 and 2019 to carry out a consensus recommendation on the management of MS patients in Argentina. To achieve consensus, the methodology of "formal consensus-RAND/UCLA method" was used. RESULTS: Recommendations focused on diagnosis, disease prognosis, tailored treatment, treatment failure identification and pharmacovigilance process. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations of these consensus guidelines attempt to optimize the health care and management of patients with MS in Argentina.

Argentinean recommendations on the identification of treatment failure in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients.

One of the biggest challenges in multiple sclerosis (MS) is the definition of treatment response/failure in order to optimize treatment decisions in affected patients. The objective of this consensus was to review how disease activity should be assessed and to propose recommendations on the identification of treatment failure in RRMS patients in Argentina. METHODS: A panel of experts in neurology from Argentina, dedicated to the diagnosis and care of MS patients, gathered both virtually and in person during 2016 and 2017 to carry out a consensus recommendation on the identification of treatment failure in RRMS patients. To achieve consensus, the methodology of "formal consensus-RAND/UCLA method" was used. RESULTS: Recommendations were established based on published evidence and the expert opinion. Recommendations focused on disease management, disease activity markers and treatment failure identification were determined. Main consensus were: ≥2 relapses during the first year of treatment and/or ≥3 new or enlarged T2 or T1 GAD+ lesions and/or sustained increase of ≥2 points in EDSS or ≥100% in T25FW defines treatment failure in RRMS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations of this consensus guidelines attempts to optimize the health care and management of patients with MS in Argentina.

Spanish cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.

OBJECTIVES: To adapt and validate a Spanish-language version (SV) of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) to facilitate its use in Spanish-speaking contexts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The methods recommended by the International Quality of Life Assessment Project were followed. Two forward translations and 1 back translation of the NIHSS were developed to ensure lingual and cultural equivalence. A final revised SV-NIHSS was administered by 8 physicians to patients with stroke in 3 clinics in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from September 2003 to December 2003. RESULTS: The study included 102 patients (mean +/- SD age, 73.3+/-6.5 years; 56% women) with stroke (86% ischemic). The SV-NIHSS mean baseline score was 9.78+/-7.04. Interrater reliability was Independently evaluated for 98 patients, showing a high agreement: kappa, 0.77 to 0.99 for the 15 items; interrater correlation coefficient, 0.991 (95% confidence Interval, 0.987-0.994). Intrarater reliability was excellent: kappa, 0.86 to 1.00 for the 15 items; mean intrarater correlation coefficient, 0.994 (95% confidence interval, 0.991-0.996). Construct validity was also adequate; the SV-NIHSS had a negative correlation with baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (Spearman coefficient = -0.574, P < .001) and with Barthel index at 3 months (Spearman coefficient = -0.658, P < .001). Patients with different Rankin scores at 3 months also had significantly different baseline SV-NIHSS scores, from a mean of 4.29+/-2.21 for Rankin score of 0 to a mean of 29.40+/-3.97 for Rankin score of 6 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that a Spanish-language version of the NIHSS developed with internationally recommended methods is reliable and valid when applied in a Spanish-speaking setting.

Suspensión de soporte vital en el estado vegetativo permanente y muerte digna / Withdrawal of life support in the permanent vegetative state, and a dignified death

Es frecuente que familiares directos soliciten la suspensión de soporte vital, en particular de la hidratación y nutrición asistidas, en pacientes con estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia permanente, y que recurran a la justicia en caso de desacuerdo. Dos casos recientes de suspensión, uno del exterior y otro argentino, autorizados por los tribunales respectivos, han sido motivo de controversia. Si bien puede parecer inhumano dejar de alimentar e hidratar, continuar haciéndolo solo prolonga un estado de supervivencia biológica irreversible. Las familias tienden a aceptar la suspensión si el paciente se mantiene sin cambios. Sin embargo, persiste preocupación por el posible sufrimiento desde la suspensión hasta la muerte, aunque el mismo es poco concebible en ausencia de función cortical y de conciencia. Si bien médicos y profanos consideran ético suspender el soporte vital, una cierta proporción de médicos considera que en el estado vegetativo, o más aún, en mínima conciencia, efectivamente se experimenta hambre, sed y dolor. En países como el Reino Unido, se han propuesto criterios de suspensión de soporte vital, y esquemas de tratamiento para el malestar durante el período de suspensión, aunque su beneficio efectivo es controvertido. La Argentina cuenta con recomendaciones de dos sociedades científicas, pero no con criterios reglamentados. Pero tanto la Ley 26.742 de "muerte digna" como el Código Civil consienten la suspensión del soporte vital en el estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia, si se acompaña de medidas de alivio de los síntomas clínicos que puedan significar sufrimiento.

Patient relatives often request withdrawal of life support, especially artificial nutrition and hydration, in cases of permanent vegetative or minimally conscious state, and resort to court in case of disagreement. Two recent cases of withdrawal authorized by the courts concerned, one from abroad and one from Argentina, have been controversial. Although it may appear inhuman to stop feeding and hydrating such patients, to continue it only prolongs a state of irreversible biological subsistence. Families tend to increasingly accept withdrawal if the patient status remains unchanged. However, concern persists regarding the suffering that patients may undergo from onset of withdrawal till death, even though such suffering is little conceivable in the absence of cortical function and conscience content. While doctors and the layman consider ethical to withdraw life support, a nonnegligible proportion of doctors consider that vegetative state patients, even more minimally conscious state patients, do experience hunger, thirst and pain. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, strict withdrawal criteria were proposed, together with pharmacological treatment schemes for the distress arising during the withdrawal period, even though its benefit is controversial. In Argentina, two scientific societies have publicly advocated withdrawal, but not issued formal guidelines. In any case, both "dignified death" Law 26.742 and the Civil Code consent withdrawal of life support, if accompanied by appropriate relief of clinical symptoms indicating suffering.