Assessing Outcomes of Patients Subject to Intensive Care to Facilitate Organ Donation: A Spanish Multicenter Prospective Study.

Intensive Care to facilitate Organ Donation (ICOD) consists of the initiation or continuation of intensive care measures in patients with a devastating brain injury (DBI) in whom curative treatment is deemed futile and death by neurological criteria (DNC) is foreseen, to incorporate organ donation into their end-of-life plans. In this study we evaluate the outcomes of patients subject to ICOD and identify radiological and clinical factors associated with progression to DNC. In this first prospective multicenter study we tested by multivariate regression the association of clinical and radiological severity features with progression to DNC. Of the 194 patients, 144 (74.2%) patients fulfilled DNC after a median of 25 h (95% IQR: 17-44) from ICOD onset. Two patients (1%) shifted from ICOD to curative treatment, both were alive at discharge. Factors associated with progression to DNC included: age below 70 years, clinical score consistent with severe brain injury, instability, intracranial hemorrhage, midline shift ≥5 mm and certain types of brain herniation. Overall 151 (77.8%) patients progressed to organ donation. Based on these results, we conclude that ICOD is a beneficial and efficient practice that can contribute to the pool of deceased donors.

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.

NeuroEthics and End of Life Care.

The emergency department is where the patient and potential ethical challenges are first encountered. Patients with acute neurologic illness introduce a unique set of dilemmas related to the pressure for ultra-early prognosis in the wake of rapidly advancing treatments. Many with neurologic injury are unable to provide autonomous consent, further complicating the picture, potentially asking uncertain surrogates to make quick decisions that may result in significant disability. The emergency department physician must take these ethical quandaries into account to provide standard of care treatment.

Current status of organ donation after brain death in the UK.

Organ donation after brain death remains the deceased organ donation pathway of choice. In the UK, the current identification and referral rate for potential donation after brain death donors is 99%, the testing rate for determining death using neurological criteria is 86% and the approach to families for donation is 91%. Increasing donation after brain death donation will primarily require a large increase in the current consent rate of 72% to one matching the consent rate of 80-90% achieved in other European countries. Implementing the use of evidence-based donor optimisation bundles may increase the number of organs available for transplantation. Alternatively, the UK will need to look at more challenging ways of increasing the pool of potential donors after brain death. The first would be to delay the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in patients with devastating brain injury to allow progression to brain death after the family have given consent to organ donation and with their consent to this delay. Even more challenging would be the consideration of re-introducing intensive care to facilitate organ donation programmes that have been so successful at increasing the number of organ donors elsewhere.

Impact of a Devastating Brain Injury Pathway on Outcomes, Resources, and Organ Donation: 3 Years' Experience in a Regional Neurosciences ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of introducing a devastating brain injury (DBI) pathway on patient outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) resources, and organ donation practice in the first 3 years of implementation in a regional neurosciences ICU in the South West of England. METHODS: Patients with DBI admitted to our ICU between 2015 and 2018 were identified from our ICU database and their outcomes compared to those of non-DBI patients. Data were also obtained from the national potential donor audit to compare organ donation metrics before and after the introduction of the DBI pathway. Organ donation metrics in DBI patients and non-DBI patients were compared once the pathway had been implemented. RESULTS: We admitted 85 DBI patients (1.3% of all admissions), with a significantly shorter median length of ICU stay than in non-DBI patients, 1.14 versus 2.93 days (p < 0.001). Decisions for withdraw life-sustaining treatments (WLST) were made significantly earlier in DBI patients, median 26.2 versus 84.8 h (p < 0.001). Over 8% of DBI patients survived, while 31% progressed to brain death compared to 7.1% in the general population (p < 0.001), and 25% become solid organ donors compared to 1.3% of the general population (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the proportion of donors after brain death (DBD) to donors after circulatory death (DCD) in the 3 years following the introduction of the DBI pathway (p = 0.024). There was also an increased proportion of DBD donors to DCD donors of 76% versus 24% in the DBI group compared to 62% versus 38% (p = 0,002) in the non-DBI population. Prognostic scoring systems do not provide accurate estimates of survival rate in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Admitting patients with perceived DBI to ICU and avoiding the early WLST allows identification of unexpected survivors and gives families more time in decision making at the end of life. The DBI pathway increases the potential for organ donation and increases the proportion of DBD donors. These benefits outweigh the small impact of a DBI pathway on ICU resources.

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.

Mechanism of Death after Decompressive Craniectomy in Non-Traumatic Brain Injury.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) after devastating brain injury (DBI) may influence the manner in which patients die, having implications for end-of-life care and organ donation. We performed a retrospective review of deaths following a non-traumatic DBI between 2008 and 2012. 160 patients were reviewed; 26 were treated with DC and 134 received standard care. There was no relationship between DC and mechanism of death, (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.44-3.17). Prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary finding. DC studies should report the mechanism of death.

End-of-life practices in patients with devastating brain injury in Spain: implications for organ donation. / Prácticas clínicas al final de la vida en pacientes con daño cerebral catastrófico en España: implicaciones para la donación de órganos.

OBJECTIVE: To describe end-of-life care practices relevant to organ donation in patients with devastating brain injury in Spain. DESIGN: A multicenter prospective study of a retrospective cohort. PERIOD: 1 November 2014 to 30 April 2015. SETTING: Sixty-eight hospitals authorized for organ procurement. PATIENTS: Patients dying from devastating brain injury (possible donors). Age: 1 month-85 years. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Type of care, donation after brain death, donation after circulatory death, intubation/ventilation, referral to the donor coordinator. RESULTS: A total of 1,970 possible donors were identified, of which half received active treatment in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) until brain death (27%), cardiac arrest (5%) or the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (19%). Of the rest, 10% were admitted to the ICU to facilitate organ donation, while 39% were not admitted to the ICU. Of those patients who evolved to a brain death condition (n=695), most transitioned to actual donation (n=446; 64%). Of those who died following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (n=537), 45 (8%) were converted into actual donation after circulatory death donors. The lack of a dedicated donation after circulatory death program was the main reason for non-donation. Thirty-seven percent of the possible donors were not intubated/ventilated at death, mainly because the professional in charge did not consider donation alter discarding therapeutic intubation. Thirty-six percent of the possible donors were never referred to the donor coordinator. CONCLUSIONS: Although deceased donation is optimized in Spain, there are still opportunities for improvement in the identification of possible donors outside the ICU and in the consideration of donation after circulatory death in patients who die following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy.

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

Early prognostication in patients with a devastating brain injury is not always accurate and can lead to inappropriate decisions. We present case histories to support the recent recommendations of the Neurocritical Care Society that treatment withdrawal decisions should be delayed by up to 72 h in these patients. Development of pathways incorporating these recommendations can improve prognostication, enhance end of life care given to these patients and their families, and increase the opportunities to explore the donation wishes of more patients. They may also standardise the approach to decision making in the same way as the recommendations for management of patients after out of hospital cardiac arrest have done.