Prolonging Support After Brain Death: When Families Ask for More

Should Providers Engage in Religious Discussions, and If They Should, Then with Whom?

AbstractPatients' spiritual views and, more generally, the meaning they feel in their lives is often, if not always, most important to them, especially when they have serious illness. Yet there are no standard requirements for providers to explore with patients their spiritual needs. Providers' views regarding their both taking initiatives to explore with patients needs and then to discuss with them their religious concerns if they want this vary widely. This piece explores, then, the extent to which providers should take these initiatives and, if they have this interest, whether as providers they should carry on these discussions or refer these patients, always, to clergy persons, as some providers adamantly advocate because they have expertise in this area that providers lack. This piece goes on to discuss whether providers believe they should have these discussions even when their patients' beliefs differ greatly from their own. In exploring this question, examples involving patients with Muslim, Hindu, and Christian beliefs are considered. Beliefs reported by some people from Germany and Israel regarding physician-assisted dying also are reported and compared, illustrating that patients' and people's beliefs cannot be reliably just inferred. Practical approaches, finally, are suggested.

The 2023 AAN/AAP/CNS/SCCM Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Practice Guideline: A Comparison With the 2010 and 2011 Guidelines

In collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Society, and Society for Critical Care Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology formulated an updated, evidence-informed consensus-based guideline for pediatric and adult brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) determination. In comparison with the prior guidelines, the revisions and additions in this guideline, which are summarized in this review, are intended to (1) ensure recommendations are conservative, yet practical, and emphasize circumstances in which BD/DNC determination should be delayed or deferred, so as to minimize the risk of a false-positive BD/DNC determination; and (2) provide guidance about aspects of BD/DNC determination that clinicians find challenging and/or controversial. We hope that clinicians throughout the United States will use this information to revise their hospital BD/DNC determination policies to conform to the standardized process for BD/DNC determination described in the new guideline, to ensure that every BD/DNC evaluation is consistent and accurate.

Potential Threats and Impediments to the Clinical Practice of Brain Death Determination: The UDDA Revision Series

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) revision series in Neurology® originated in response to the plan of the Uniform Law Commission to create a revised Uniform Determination of Death Act (rUDDA) to address contemporary controversies associated with brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) determination. This article contextualizes these, and other, controversies and reviews the extent to which they represent potential threats and impediments to the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination. It also explains the reasons that our rapidly evolving understanding of the brain's ability to recover from injury should not influence the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination. Finally, it explores the myriad ways in which the American Academy of Neurology has addressed potential threats and impediments to the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination and the implications potential changes to the UDDA may have on the future of the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination.

Brain Death: Ethical and Legal Challenges

Although the fundamental principle behind the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), the equivalence of death by circulatory-respiratory and neurologic criteria, is accepted throughout the United States and much of the world, some families object to brain death/death by neurologic criteria. Clinicians struggle to address these objections. Some objections have been brought to court, particularly in the United States, leading to inconsistent outcomes and discussion about potential modifications to the UDDA to minimize ethical and legal controversies related to the determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria.

Should the Revised Uniform Determination of Death Act Address Objections to the Use of Neurologic Criteria to Declare Death?

In response to concerns about the declaration of death by neurologic criteria, the Uniform Law Commission created a drafting committee to update the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in the Fall of 2021. One of the key questions for the committee to address was the following: Should the revised UDDA address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death? This article (1) provides historical background and survey results that demonstrate the need to address this question; (2) summarizes the ethical principles that support and oppose accommodation of objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death; (3) reviews accommodation in other areas of medicine and law; (4) discusses existing legal and hospital guidance on management of these objections; (5) examines perspectives of stakeholder medical societies and expert health care professionals, lawyers, ethicists, and philosophers on whether the revised UDDA should address these objections; (6) identifies some questions for the drafting committee to consider when deciding whether the revised UDDA should address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death; and (7) summarizes the potential downstream effects of the drafting committee's decision.

Variability in Pediatric Brain Death Determination Protocols in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To determine the variability in pediatric death by neurologic criteria (DNC) protocols between US pediatric institutions and compared to the 2011 DNC guidelines.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study of DNC protocols obtained from pediatric institutions in the United States via regional organ procurement organizations, protocols were evaluated across 5 domains: general DNC procedures, prerequisites, neurologic examination, apnea testing, and ancillary testing. Descriptive statistics compared protocols to each other and the 2011 guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 130 protocols were analyzed with 118 dated after publication of the 2011 guidelines. Of those 118 protocols, identification of a mechanism of irreversible brain injury was required in 97%, while 67% required an observation period after acute brain injury before DNC evaluation. Most protocols required guideline-based prerequisites such as exclusion of hypotension (94%), hypothermia (97%), and metabolic derangements (92%). On neurologic examination, 91% required a lack of responsiveness, 93% no response to noxious stimuli, and 99% loss of brainstem reflexes. A total of 84% of protocols required the guideline-recommended 2 apnea tests. CO2 targets were consistent with guidelines in 64%. Contrary to guidelines, 15% required ancillary testing for all patients and 15% permitted ancillary studies that are not validated in pediatrics.

CONCLUSION

Variability exists between pediatric institutional DNC protocols in all domains of DNC determination, especially with respect to apnea and ancillary testing. Better alignment of DNC protocols with national guidelines may improve the consistency and accuracy of DNC determination.

Neurosurgical patients admitted via the emergency department initiating comfort care measures: a prospective cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the serious nature of many neurosurgical pathologies, it is common for hospitalized patients to elect comfort care (CC) over aggressive treatment. Few studies have evaluated the incidence and risk factors of CC trends in patients admitted for neurosurgical emergencies.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze all neurosurgical patients admitted to a tertiary care academic referral center via the emergency department (ED) to determine incidence and characteristics of those who initiated CC measures during their initial hospital admission.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, cohort analysis of all consecutive adult patients admitted to the neurosurgical service via the ED between October 2018 and May 2019. The primary outcome was the initiation of CC measures during the patient's hospital admission. CC was defined as cessation of life-sustaining measures and a shift in focus to maintaining the comfort and dignity of the patient.

RESULTS

Of the 428 patients admitted during the 7-month period, 29 (6.8%) initiated CC measures within 4.0 ± 4.0 days of admission. Patients who entered CC were significantly more likely to have a medical history of cerebrovascular disease (58.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.006), dementia (17.2% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.0004), or cancer with metastatic disease (24.1% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.001). Patients with a presenting pathology associated with cerebrovascular disease were significantly more likely to initiate CC (62.1% vs. 35.3, p = 0.04). Patients who underwent emergent surgery were significantly more likely to enter CC compared with those who had elective surgery (80.0% vs. 42.7%, p = 0.02). Only 10 of the 29 (34.5%) patients who initiated CC underwent a neurosurgical operation (p = 0.002). Twenty of the 29 (69.0%) patients died within 0.8 ± 0.8 days after the initiation of CC measures.

CONCLUSION

CC measures were initiated in 6.8% of patients admitted to the neurosurgical service via the ED, with the majority of patients entering CC before an operation and presenting with a cerebrovascular pathology.

Evaluation of Computed Tomography Angiography as an Ancillary Test to Reduce Confusion After Clinical Diagnosis of Brain Death

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of brain death (BD) is mainly a clinical diagnosis. Ancillary tests may be used in confusing situations. Although computed tomography angiography (CTA) has high sensitivity and specificity, it can give false-positive results in cases with craniotomy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to emphasize the importance of accurate and detailed clinical diagnosis and to reveal that there is organ loss as a result of prolonged supportive tests, especially in developing countries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who were diagnosed with BD in the intensive care unit of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, between September 2014 and August 2017 in Turkey. The study included 14 male and 8 female patients. Patients who did not show any spontaneous respiratory symptoms after the apnea test were diagnosed with clinical BD. Patients on neurodepressant medications who were hypothermic or hypoxic or had a severe endocrine or metabolic disorder were excluded from the study. CTA was used as an ancillary test in compliance with legal requirements. Age, sex, hospitalization days, day of clinical diagnosis of BD, first radiologic evaluation by CTA, clinical diagnosis, and radiologic evaluation were recorded for all patients.

RESULTS

Radiologic evaluation was not compatible with the clinical evaluation in 5 patients. Although 2 of these 5 patients had BD diagnosis clinically, blood flow could be expected during CTA because of cranial injury. Unlike in the literature, false positivity was found in 3 patients with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in the present study.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper management of limited resources and the facilitation of cadaver organ donation in developing countries are important and humanitarian global responsibilities. Revision of the country's legal regulations is important and is warranted in this regard.

A Qualitative Identification of Gaps in Understanding About Brain Death Among Trainees, Health Care Personnel and Families at an Academic Medical Center

Background and Purpose

Death by whole brain criteria (brain death) is a clinical diagnosis. We sought to identify aspects of brain death that were unclear to both health care personnel and patient families.

Methods

Institutional review board approved cross-sectional survey study of attendings, medical trainees (residents and fellows), senior medical students, advanced practice providers (APPs), and critical care nursing (registered nurses [RNs]) at a tertiary referral center over 6 months (March 2018 to September 2018). Surveys were completed on paper or electronically. Participants supplied the top 3 of (1) their own personal questions regarding brain death and (2) questions received from patient families about brain death from a prepared list of questions.

Results

Two hundred twenty-nine individuals participated in the survey, with a response rate of 46%. Participation rates in brain death declaration among attendings (92%), RNs (84%), APPs (100%), and trainees of which included fellows (92%) and residents (85%) were high. Most frequently asked questions by trainees and health care personnel were "What are brain death mimics?" and "What is the gold standard testing?". Questions received from patient families most commonly include "What is brain death?" and "Is brain death reversible?". All medical students had questions about brain death. Greater than 75% of attendings endorsed having questions regarding brain death.

Conclusion

Many health care personnel are involved with brain death declaration, but there are gaps in their understanding about fundamentals regarding brain death. We identify a need for early and targeted brain death education regarding brain death and family communication for various members of the health care profession.

Incidence of the initiation of comfort care immediately following emergent neurosurgical and endovascular procedures

OBJECTIVE

It is unknown what proportion of patients who undergo emergent neurosurgical procedures initiate comfort care (CC) measures shortly after the operation. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the proportion and predictive factors of patients who initiated CC measures within the same hospital admission after undergoing emergent neurosurgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all adult patients who underwent emergent neurosurgical and endovascular procedures at a single center between 2009 and 2014. Primary and secondary outcomes were initiation of CC measures during the initial hospitalization and determination of predictive factors, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 1295 operations, comfort care was initiated in 111 (8.6%) during the initial admission. On average, CC was initiated 9.3 ± 10.0 days postoperatively. One-third of the patients switched to CC within 3 days. In multivariate analysis, patients > 70 years of age were significantly more likely to undergo CC than those < 50 years (70-79 years, p = 0.004; > 80 years, p = 0.0001). Two-thirds of CC patients had been admitted with a cerebrovascular pathology (p < 0.001). Admission diagnosis of cerebrovascular pathology was a significant predictor of initiating CC (p < 0.0001). A high Hunt and Hess grade of IV or V in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage was significantly associated with initiation of CC compared to a low grade (27.1% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). Surgery starting between 15:01 and 06:59 hours had a 1.70 times greater odds of initiating CC compared to surgery between 07:00 and 15:00.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of CC after emergent neurosurgical and endovascular procedures is relatively common, particularly when an elderly patient presents with a cerebrovascular pathology after typical operating hours.

Determination of Death by Neurologic Criteria in the United States: The Case for Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act

Although death by neurologic criteria (brain death) is legally recognized throughout the United States, state laws and clinical practice vary concerning three key issues: (1) the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic criteria, (2) management of family objections before determination of death by neurologic criteria, and (3) management of religious objections to declaration of death by neurologic criteria. The American Academy of Neurology and other medical stakeholder organizations involved in the determination of death by neurologic criteria have undertaken concerted action to address variation in clinical practice in order to ensure the integrity of brain death determination. To complement this effort, state policymakers must revise legislation on the use of neurologic criteria to declare death. We review the legal history and current laws regarding neurologic criteria to declare death and offer proposed revisions to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and the rationale for these recommendations.

Epidemiology of Brain Death in Pediatric Intensive Care Units in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines for declaration of brain death in children were revised in 2011 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Child Neurology Society. Despite widespread medical, legal, and ethical acceptance, ongoing controversies exist with regard to the concept of brain death and the procedures for its determination.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of pediatric patients declared brain dead in the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study involved the abstraction of all patient deaths from the Virtual Pediatric Systems national multicenter database between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2017. All patients who died in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patient demographics, preillness developmental status, severity of illness, cause of death, PICU medical and physical length of stay, and organ donation status, as well as comparison between patients who were declared brain dead vs those who sustained cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary death.

RESULTS

Of the 15 344 patients who died, 3170 (20.7%) were declared brain dead; 1861 of these patients (58.7%) were male, and 1401 (44.2%) were between 2 and 12 years of age. There was a linear association between PICU size and number of patients declared brain dead per year, with an increase of 4.27 patients (95% CI, 3.46-5.08) per 1000-patient increase in discharges (P < .001). The median (interquartile range) of patients declared brain dead per year ranged from 1 (0-3) in smaller PICUs (defined as those with <500 discharges per year) to 10 (7-15) for larger PICUs (those with 2000-4000 discharges per year). The most common causative mechanisms of brain death were hypoxic-ischemic injury owing to cardiac arrest (1672 of 3170 [52.7%]), shock and/or respiratory arrest without cardiac arrest (399 of 3170 [12.6%]), and traumatic brain injury (634 of 3170 [20.0%]). Most patients declared brain dead (681 of 807 [84.4%]) did not have preexisting neurological dysfunction. Patients who were organ donors (1568 of 3144 [49.9%]) remained in the PICU longer after declaration of brain death compared with those who were not donors (median [interquartile range], 29 [6-41] hours vs 4 [1-8] hours; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Brain death occurred in one-fifth of PICU deaths. Most children declared brain dead had no preexisting neurological dysfunction and had an acute hypoxic-ischemic or traumatic brain injury. Brain death determinations are infrequent, even in large PICUs, emphasizing the importance of ongoing education for medical professionals and standardization of protocols to ensure diagnostic accuracy and consistency.

Brain death, the determination of brain death, and member guidance for brain death accommodation requests: AAN position statement

The American Academy of Neurology holds the following positions regarding brain death and its determination, and provides the following guidance to its members who encounter resistance to brain death, its determination, or requests for accommodation including continued use of organ support technology despite neurologic determination of death.

Medicolegal Complications of Apnoea Testing for Determination of Brain Death

Recently, there have been a number of lawsuits in the United States in which families objected to performance of apnoea testing for determination of brain death. The courts reached conflicting determinations in these cases. We discuss the medicolegal complications associated with apnoea testing that are highlighted by these cases and our position that the decision to perform apnoea testing should be made by clinicians, not families, judges, or juries.

Re A (A Child) and the United Kingdom Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death: Should a Secular Construct of Death Override Religious Values in a Pluralistic Society?

The determination of death by neurological criteria remains controversial scientifically, culturally, and legally, worldwide. In the United Kingdom, although the determination of death by neurological criteria is not legally codified, the Code of Practice of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is customarily used for neurological (brainstem) death determination and treatment withdrawal. Unlike some states in the US, however, there are no provisions under the law requiring accommodation of and respect for residents' religious rights and commitments when secular conceptions of death based on medical codes and practices conflict with a traditional concept well-grounded in religious and cultural values and practices. In this article, we analyse the medical, ethical, and legal issues that were generated by the recent judgement of the High Court of England and Wales in Re: A (A Child) [2015] EWHC 443 (Fam). Mechanical ventilation was withdrawn in this case despite parental religious objection to a determination of death based on the code of practice. We outline contemporary evidence that has refuted the reliability of tests of brainstem function to ascertain the two conjunctive clinical criteria for the determination of death that are stipulated in the code of practice: irreversible loss of capacity for consciousness and somatic integration of bodily biological functions. We argue that: (1) the tests of brainstem function were not properly undertaken in this case; (2) the two conjunctive clinical criteria set forth in the code of practice cannot be reliably confirmed by these tests in any event; and (3) absent authentication of the clinical criteria of death, the code of practice (in fact, although implicitly rather than explicitly) wrongly invokes a secular definition of death based on the loss of personhood. Consequently, the moral obligation of a pluralistic society to honor and respect diverse religious convictions to the greatest extent possible is being violated. Re A (A Child) is contrasted with the US case of Jahi McMath in which the court accommodated parental religious objection to the determination of neurological death codified in the Uniform Determination of Death Act. We conclude that the legal system in the United Kingdom should not favour a secular definition of death over a definition of death that is respectful of religious values about the inviolability and sanctity of life. We recommend the legal recognition of religious accommodation in death determination to facilitate cultural sensitivity and compassionate care to patients and families in a pluralistic society.

An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination

In response to a number of recent lawsuits related to brain death determination, the American Academy of Neurology Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee convened a multisociety quality improvement summit in October 2016 to address, and potentially correct, aspects of brain death determination within the purview of medical practice that may have contributed to these lawsuits. This article, which has been endorsed by multiple societies that are stakeholders in brain death determination, summarizes the discussion at this summit, wherein we (1) reaffirmed the validity of determination of death by neurologic criteria and the use of the American Academy of Neurology practice guideline to determine brain death in adults; (2) discussed the development of systems to ensure that brain death determination is consistent and accurate; (3) reviewed strategies to respond to objections to determination of death by neurologic criteria; and (4) outlined goals to improve public trust in brain death determination.

Organ Support After Death by Neurologic Criteria in Pediatric Patients

OBJECTIVES

We sought to 1) evaluate how pediatricians approach situations in which families request continuation of organ support after declaration of death by neurologic criteria and 2) explore potential interventions to make these situations less challenging.

DESIGN

A survey on management and personal experience with death by neurologic criteria was distributed electronically to pediatric intensivists and neurologists. We compared responses from individuals who practice in states with accommodation exceptions (accommodation states where religious or moral beliefs must be taken into consideration when declaring death: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York) to those from non-accommodation states.

SETTING

United States.

SUBJECTS

The survey was opened by 254 recipients, with 186 meeting inclusion criteria and providing data about the region in which they practice; of these, 26% were from accommodation states.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

More than half of physicians (61% from both accommodation states and non-accommodation states) reported they cared for a pediatric patient whose family requested continuation of organ support after declaration of death by neurologic criteria (outside of organ donation; range, 1-17 times). Over half of physicians (53%) reported they would not feel comfortable handling a situation in which a pediatric patient's family requested care be continued after declaration of death by neurologic criteria. Nearly every physician (98%) endorsed that something needs to be done to make situations involving families who object to discontinuation of organ support after declaration of death by neurologic criteria easier to handle. Respondents felt that public education, physician education, and uniform state laws about these situations are warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

It is relatively common for pediatricians who care for critically ill patients to encounter families who object to discontinuation of organ support after death by neurologic criteria. Management of these situations is challenging, and guidance for medical professionals and the public is needed.

Physician Power to Declare Death by Neurologic Criteria Threatened

BACKGROUND

Three recent lawsuits that address declaration of brain death (BD) garnered significant media attention and threaten to limit physician power to declare BD.

METHODS

We discuss these cases and their consequences including: the right to refuse an apnea test, accepted medical standards for declaration of BD, and the irreversibility of BD.

RESULTS

These cases warrant discussion because they threaten to: limit physicians' power to determine death; incite families to seek injunctions to continue organ support after BD; and force hospitals to dispense valuable resources to dead patients in lieu of patients with reparable illnesses or injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians, philosophers, religious officials, ethicists, and lawyers must work together to address these issues and educate both the public and medical community about BD.

Current controversies in brain death determination

Although the concept of brain death is accepted by the majority of physicians, lawyers, ethicists and society at large, controversies about determination of death by neurological criteria persist, and often reach the public eye. In this article, we examine four prominent controversial brain death cases from 2013-2016. We review current controversies, including protocol variability, recognition of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) criteria for brain death as an accepted medical standard, and management of objections to discontinuation of organ support after determination of brain death. Brain death remains conceptually and legally valid, and it is vital that these issues are solved. We argue that medical societies and governmental regulatory bodies must support the AAN criteria in order to decrease protocol variability, and must fully endorse the validity of these criteria as accepted medical standards.

Shouldn't Dead Be Dead?: The Search for a Uniform Definition of Death

In 1968, the definition of death in the United States was expanded to include not just death by cardiopulmonary criteria, but also death by neurologic criteria. We explore the way the definition has been modified by the medical and legal communities over the past 50 years and address the medical, legal and ethical controversies associated with the definition at present, with a particular highlight on the Supreme Court of Nevada Case of Aden Hailu.

Organ donation protocols

Organ transplantation improves survival and quality of life in patients with end-organ failure. Waiting lists continue to grow across the world despite remarkable advances in the transplantation process, from the creation of public engagement campaigns to the development of critical pathways for the timely identification, referral, approach, and treatment of the potential organ donor. The pathophysiology of dying triggers systemic changes that are intimately related to organ viability. The intensive care management of the potential organ donor optimizes organ function and improves the donation yield, representing a significant step in reducing the mismatch between organ supply and demand. Different beliefs and cultures reflect diverse legislations and donation practices amongst different countries, creating a challenge to standardized practices. Maintaining public trust is necessary for continued progress in organ donation and transplantation, hence the urge for a joint effort in creating uniform protocols that ensure transparent practices within the medical community.

Organ support after death by neurologic criteria: Results of a survey of US neurologists

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate how neurologists approach situations in which families request prolonged organ support after declaration of death by neurologic criteria (DNC).

METHODS

We surveyed 938 members of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) who treat critically ill patients, including 50% who practice in states with accommodation exceptions (states that require religious or moral beliefs to be taken into consideration when declaring death or discontinuing organ support: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York), and 50% who practice in nonaccommodation states.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 201/938 individuals (21% response rate), 96 of whom were from accommodation states and 105 of whom were from nonaccommodation states. Both groups reported encountering situations in which families requested continuation of organ support after DNC (48% from accommodation states and 46% from nonaccommodation states). In a hypothetical scenario where a request is made to continue organ support after DNC (outside of organ donation), 48% of respondents indicated they would continue support due to fear of litigation. In reply to an open-ended question, respondents requested that the AAN generate guidelines and advocate to codify laws regarding organ support after DNC, and to improve public and physician education on DNC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that it is relatively common for neurologists who treat critically ill patients to encounter families who object to discontinuation of organ support after DNC at some point during their career. It would be beneficial for physicians, families, and society to rely on clear medicolegal guidelines on management of this situation.