Factors influencing decisions by critical care physicians to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury

Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining therapies in patients with and without acute brain injury: a secondary analysis of two prospective cohort studies

BACKGROUND

Many deaths in the intensive care unit (ICU) occur after a decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining therapies (WLSTs). We aimed to explore the differences in the incidence and timing of WLST between patients with and without acute brain injuries (ABIs).

METHODS

We did a secondary analysis of two prospective, international studies that recruited patients who were invasively or non-invasively ventilated between 2004 and 2016 from 40 countries. ABI was defined as brain trauma, ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, seizures, or meningitis-encephalitis. The comparator group included non-ABI conditions. Time to WLST was evaluated by use of cumulative incidence curves. Differences in WLST were analysed by use of multilevel logistic regression.

FINDINGS

Between March 11, 2004, and Dec 17, 2016, we recruited 21 970 patients (16 791 in the WLST analysis), of whom 13 526 (61·6%) were male and 8444 (38·4%) were female and 2896 (13·2%) had ABI. WLST occurred in 2056 (12·2%) of 16 791 patients) and was more common in patients with ABI versus without (372 [17·0%] of 2191 vs 1684 [11·5%] of 14 600; risk difference 5·5%; 95% CI 3·8-7·1; odds ratio [OR] 2·42; 1·89-3·12). WLST decisions occurred earlier in patients with ABI versus patients without ABI (median, 4 days [IQR 2-9] versus 6 days [2-13] after ICU admission; absolute difference, 2 days; 95% CI 1-3). Findings were similar across different ABI subgroups, world regions, and cohort years. Variability among ICUs in WLST decisions for patients with ABI and patients without ABI was high (respectively, median OR, 3·04; 95% CI 2·54-3·67, and median OR 2·59; 2·38-2·78).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that WLST decisions are significantly more common in patients with ABI versus patients without ABI and occur earlier in this group. The rationale for early WLST following ABI warrants further exploration, accounting for additional neurological factors that were not available in the present analysis.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Emerging ethical issues in patients with disorders of consciousness: A clinical guide

Clinicians who manage patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) commonly encounter challenging ethical issues. Consciousness disorders include the vegetative state, the minimally conscious state, and covert consciousness resulting from cognitive-motor dissociation. The practice landscape of ethical issues encompasses making the correct diagnosis; making and communicating an accurate prognosis despite irreducible uncertainty; conducting effective shared decision-making with a lawful surrogate decision-maker to deliver goal-concordant care; providing optimal medical, rehabilitative, and palliative care across the spectrum of care sites: acute inpatient, neurorehabilitative, chronic, and palliative; respecting the human rights of and advocating for DoC patient, an historically under-served population and, when appropriate, properly participating in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapy. Research and translational issues in DoC patients include the challenges posed by emerging diagnostics and therapeutics and their prudential integration into clinical practice in the service of patients and their families. Our conceptual analysis of these ethical issues and our practical advice to address them comprise the subject material of this chapter.

Recovery Potential in Patients Who Died After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment: A TRACK-TBI Propensity Score Analysis

Among patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), there is high prognostic uncertainty but growing evidence that recovery of independence is possible. Nevertheless, families are often asked to make decisions about withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) within days of injury. The range of potential outcomes for patients who died after WLST (WLST+) is unknown, posing a challenge for prognostic modeling and clinical counseling. We investigated the potential for survival and recovery of independence after acute TBI in patients who died after WLST. We used Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) data and propensity score matching to pair participants with WLST+ to those with a similar probability of WLST (based on demographic and clinical characteristics), but for whom life-sustaining treatment was not withdrawn (WLST-). To optimize matching, we divided the WLST- cohort into tiers (Tier 1 = 0-11%, Tier 2 = 11-27%, Tier 3 = 27-70% WLST propensity). We estimated the level of recovery that could be expected in WLST+ participants by evaluating 3-, 6-, and 12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) and Disability Rating Scale outcomes in matched WLST- participants. Of 90 WLST+ participants (80% male, mean [standard deviation; SD] age = 59.2 [17.9] years, median [IQR] days to WLST = 5.4 [2.2, 11.7]), 80 could be matched to WLST- participants. Of 56 WLST- participants who were followed at 6 months, 31 (55%) died. Among survivors in the overall sample and survivors in Tiers 1 and 2, more than 30% recovered at least partial independence (GOSE ≥4). In Tier 3, recovery to GOSE ≥4 occurred at 12 months, but not 6 months, post-injury. These results suggest a substantial proportion of patients with TBI and WLST may have survived and achieved at least partial independence. However, death or severe disability is a common outcome when the probability of WLST is high. While further validation is needed, our findings support a more cautious clinical approach to WLST and more complete reporting on WLST in TBI studies.

Multimodal Prediction of 3- and 12-Month Outcomes in ICU Patients with Acute Disorders of Consciousness

BACKGROUND

In intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coma and other disorders of consciousness (DoC), outcome prediction is key to decision-making regarding prognostication, neurorehabilitation, and management of family expectations. Current prediction algorithms are largely based on chronic DoC, whereas multimodal data from acute DoC are scarce. Therefore, the Consciousness in Neurocritical Care Cohort Study Using Electroencephalography and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (i.e. CONNECT-ME; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02644265) investigates ICU patients with acute DoC due to traumatic and nontraumatic brain injuries, using electroencephalography (EEG) (resting-state and passive paradigms), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) (resting-state) and systematic clinical examinations.

METHODS

We previously presented results for a subset of patients (n = 87) concerning prediction of consciousness levels in the ICU. Now we report 3- and 12-month outcomes in an extended cohort (n = 123). Favorable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 3, a cerebral performance category score ≤ 2, and a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score ≥ 4. EEG features included visual grading, automated spectral categorization, and support vector machine consciousness classifier. fMRI features included functional connectivity measures from six resting-state networks. Random forest and support vector machine were applied to EEG and fMRI features to predict outcomes. Here, random forest results are presented as areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves or accuracy. Cox proportional regression with in-hospital death as a competing risk was used to assess independent clinical predictors of time to favorable outcome.

RESULTS

Between April 2016 and July 2021, we enrolled 123 patients (mean age 51 years, 42% women). Of 82 (66%) ICU survivors, 3- and 12-month outcomes were available for 79 (96%) and 77 (94%), respectively. EEG features predicted both 3-month (AUC 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.82]) and 12-month (AUC 0.74 [95% CI 0.71-0.77]) outcomes. fMRI features appeared to predict 3-month outcome (accuracy 0.69-0.78) both alone and when combined with some EEG features (accuracies 0.73-0.84) but not 12-month outcome (larger sample sizes needed). Independent clinical predictors of time to favorable outcome were younger age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04 [95% CI 1.02-1.06]), traumatic brain injury (HR 1.94 [95% CI 1.04-3.61]), command-following abilities at admission (HR 2.70 [95% CI 1.40-5.23]), initial brain imaging without severe pathological findings (HR 2.42 [95% CI 1.12-5.22]), improving consciousness in the ICU (HR 5.76 [95% CI 2.41-15.51]), and favorable visual-graded EEG (HR 2.47 [95% CI 1.46-4.19]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that EEG and fMRI features and readily available clinical data predict short-term outcome of patients with acute DoC and that EEG also predicts 12-month outcome after ICU discharge.

The Variation of Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Therapy in Older Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury

INTRODUCTION

The decision to withdraw life sustaining treatment (WDLST) in older adults with traumatic brain injury is subject to wide variability leading to nonbeneficial interventions and unnecessary use of hospital resources. We hypothesized that patient and hospital factors are associated with WDLST and WDLST timing.

METHODS

All traumatic brain injury patients ≥65 with Glasgow coma scores (GCS) of 4-11 from 2018 to 2019 at level I and II centers were selected from the National Trauma Data Bank. Patients with head abbreviated injury scores 5-6 or death within 24 h were excluded. Bayesian additive regression tree analysis was performed to identify the cumulative incidence function (CIF) and the relative risks (RR) over time for withdrawal of care, discharge to hospice (DH), and death. Death alone (no WDLST or DH) served as the comparator group for all analyses. A subanalysis of the composite outcome WDLST/DH (defined as end-of-life-care), with death (no WDLST or DH) as a comparator cohort was performed.

RESULTS

We included 2126 patients, of whom 1957 (57%) underwent WDLST, 402 (19%) died, and 469 (22%) were DH. 60% of patients were male, and the mean age was 80 y. The majority of patients were injured by fall (76%, n = 1644). Patients who were DH were more often female (51% DH versus 39% WDLST), had a past medical history of dementia (45% DH versus 18% WDLST), and had lower admission injury severity score (14 DH versus 18.6 WDLST) (P < 0.001). Compared to those who DH, those who underwent WDLST had a lower GCS (9.8 versus 8.4, P < 0.001). CIF of WDSLT and DH increased with age, stabilizing by day 3. At day 3, patients ≥90 y had an increased RR of DH compared to WDLST (RR 2.5 versus 1.4). As GCS increased, CIF and RR of WDLST decreased, while CIF and RR of DH increased (RR on day 3 for GCS 12: WDLST 0.42 versus DH 1.31).Patients at nonprofit institutions were more likely to undergo WDLST (RR 1.15) compared to DH (0.68). Compared to patients of White race, patients of Black race had a lower RR of WDLST at all timepoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and hospital factors influence the practice of end-of-life-care (WDLST, DH, and death), highlighting the need to better understand variability to target palliative care interventions and standardize care across populations and trauma centers.

Ethical Considerations in Neuroprognostication Following Acute Brain Injury

Neuroprognostication following acute brain injury (ABI) is a complex process that involves integrating vast amounts of information to predict a patient's likely trajectory of neurologic recovery. In this setting, critically evaluating salient ethical questions is imperative, and the implications often inform high-stakes conversations about the continuation, limitation, or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. While neuroprognostication is central to these clinical "life-or-death" decisions, the ethical underpinnings of neuroprognostication itself have been underexplored for patients with ABI. In this article, we discuss the ethical challenges of individualized neuroprognostication including parsing and communicating its inherent uncertainty to surrogate decision-makers. We also explore the population-based ethical considerations that arise in the context of heterogenous prognostication practices. Finally, we examine the emergence of artificial intelligence-aided neuroprognostication, proposing an ethical framework relevant to both modern and longstanding prognostic tools.

Physician experience improves ability to predict 6-month functional outcome of severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

The functional prognosis of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) during the acute phase is often poor and uncertain. We aimed to quantify the elements that shade the degree of uncertainty in prognostic determination of TBI and to better understand the role of clinical experience in prognostic quality.

METHODS

This was an observational, prospective, multicenter study. The medical records of 16 patients with moderate or severe TBI in 2020 were randomly drawn from a previous study and submitted to two groups of physicians: senior and junior. The senior physician group had graduated from a critical care fellowship, and the junior physician group had at least 3 years of anesthesia and critical care residency. They were asked for each patient, based on the reading of clinical data and CT images of the first 24 h, to determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale < 4) at 6 months between 0 and 100, and their level of confidence. These estimations were compared with the actual evolution.

RESULTS

Eighteen senior physicians and 18 junior physicians in 4 neuro-intensive care units were included in 2021. We observed that senior physicians performed better than junior physicians, with 73% (95% confidence interval (CI) 65-79) and 62% (95% CI 56-67) correct predictions, respectively, in the senior and junior groups (p = 0.006). The risk factors for incorrect prediction were junior group (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.55), low confidence in the estimation (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.18-2.63), and low level of agreement on prediction between senior physicians (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.45-13.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Determining functional prognosis in the acute phase of severe TBI involves uncertainty. This uncertainty should be modulated by the experience and confidence of the physician, and especially on the degree of agreement between physicians.

Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapies in Children with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Neuroprognostication in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is challenging and occurs in critical care settings to determine withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WLST). However, formal pediatric sTBI neuroprognostication guidelines are lacking, brain death criteria vary, and dilemmas regarding WLST persist, which lead to institutional differences. We studied WLST practice and outcome in pediatric sTBI to provide insight into WLST-associated factors and survivor recovery trajectory ≥1 year post-sTBI. This retrospective, single center observational study included patients <18 years admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of Erasmus MC-Sophia (a tertiary university hospital) between 2012 and 2020 with sTBI defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤8 and requiring intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Clinical, neuroimaging, and electroencephalogram data were reviewed. Multi-disciplinary follow-up included the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) score, educational level, and commonly cited complaints. Seventy-eight children with sTBI were included (median age 10.5 years; interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-14.1; 56% male; 67% traffic-related accidents). Median ICP monitoring was 5 days (IQR 3-8), 19 (24%) underwent decompressive craniectomy. PICU mortality was 21% (16/78): clinical brain death (5/16), WLST due to poor neurological prognosis (WLST_neuro, 11/16). Significant differences (p < 0.001) between survivors and non-survivors: first GCS score, first pupillary reaction and first lactate, Injury Severity Score, pre-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and Rotterdam CT (computed tomography) score. WLST_neuro decision timing ranged from 0 to 31 days (median 2 days, IQR 0-5). WLST_neuro decision (n = 11) was based on neurologic examination (100%), brain imaging (100%) and refractory intracranial hypertension (5/11; 45%). WLST discussions were multi-disciplinary with 100% agreement. Immediate agreement between medical team and caregivers was 81%. The majority (42/62, 68%) of survivors were poor outcome (PCPC score 3 to 5) at PICU discharge, of which 12 (19%) in a vegetative state. One year post-injury, no patients were in a vegetative state and the median PCPC score had improved to 2 (IQR 2-3). No patients died after PICU discharge. Twenty percent of survivors could not attend school 2 years post-injury. Survivors requiring an adjusted educational level increased to 45% within this timeframe. Chronic complaints were headache, behavioral problems, and sleeping problems. In conclusion, two-thirds of sTBI PICU mortality was secondary to WLST_neuro and occurred early post-injury. Median survivor PCPC score improved from 4 to 2 with no vegetative patients 1 year post-sTBI. Our findings show the WLST decision process was multi-disciplinary and guided by specific clinical features at presentation, clinical course, and (serial) neurological diagnostic modalities, of which the testing combination was determined by case-to-case variation. This stresses the need for international guidelines to provide accurate neuroprognostication within an appropriate timeframe whereby overall survivor outcome data provides valuable context and guidance in the acute phase decision process.

Ethics and the 2018 Practice Guideline on Disorders of Consciousness: A Framework for Responsible Implementation

The 2018 practice guideline on disorders of consciousness marks an important turning point in the care of patients with severe brain injury. As clinicians and health systems implement the guideline in practice, several ethical challenges will arise in assessing the benefits, harms, feasibility, and cost of recommended interventions. We provide guidance for clinicians when interpreting these recommendations and call on professional societies to develop an ethical framework to complement the guideline as it is implemented in clinical practice.

Factors Affecting Neurosurgeons' Decisions to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatments After Traumatic Brain Injury

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a multifaceted condition that causes mortality and disability worldwide. Limited data are available on the factors associated with the decision for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) for patients with TBI. In the present study, we aimed to determine the risk factors and attitudes affecting neurosurgeons when deciding on WLST for patients with TBI using a multicenter survey.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was applied worldwide and shared using social media platforms and electronic mail to ∼5000 neurosurgeons. The social media group "Neurosurgery Cocktail" was used to post a link to the questionnaire. In addition, randomly chosen neurosurgery clinics around the world were sent the survey via electronic mail.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 17.22% had decided on WLST after TBI for >26 patients. Neurosurgeons with more WLST decisions were older, had had more clinical experience and intensive care unit (ICU) training, and were better prepared to involve the family members of TBI patients in their decision-making compared with those with fewer WLST decisions. The respondents stated that the patient's family, ICU consultants, and themselves played the most influential role in the WLST decisions, with the hospital administration, social workers, spiritual caregivers, and nurses having lesser roles. The current and presenting Glasgow coma scale scores, pupillary response, advanced patient age, candidates for a vegetative state, and impaired neurological function were significant factors associated with the WLST decision.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate neurosurgeons concerning their opinions and behaviors regarding WLST decisions after TBI. Increased patient age, Glasgow coma scale score, pupillary response, the presence of comorbidities, candidacy for a vegetative state, and impaired neurological function were the main factors contributing to the decision for WLST. We also found that the family, ICU consultants, and the attending neurosurgeon had the most effective roles in the decisions regarding WLST.

Predictors of Surrogate Decision Makers Selecting Life-Sustaining Therapy for Severe Acute Brain Injury Patients: An Analysis of US Population Survey Data

BACKGROUND

Patients with a severe acute brain injury admitted to the intensive care unit often have a poor neurological prognosis. In these situations, a clinician is responsible for conducting a goals-of-care conversation with the patient's surrogate decision makers. The diversity in thought and background of surrogate decision makers can present challenges during these conversations. For this reason, our study aimed to identify predictive characteristics of US surrogate decision makers' favoring life-sustaining treatment (LST) over comfort measures only for patients with severe acute brain injury.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey study that had recruited 1588 subjects from an online probability-based US population sample. Seven hundred and ninety-two subjects had randomly received a hypothetical scenario regarding a relative intubated with severe acute brain injury with a prognosis of severe disability but with the potential to regain some consciousness. Seven hundred and ninety-six subjects had been randomized to a similar scenario in which the relative was projected to remain vegetative. For each scenario, we conducted univariate analyses and binary logistic regressions to determine predictors of LST selection among available respondent characteristics.

RESULTS

15.0% of subjects selected LST for the severe disability scenario compared to 11.4% for the vegetative state scenario (p = 0.07), with those selecting LST in both groups expressing less decisional certainty. For the severe disability scenario, independent predictors of LST included having less than a high school education (adjusted OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.23-6.76), concern regarding prognostic accuracy (7.64, 3.61-16.15), and concern regarding the cost of care (4.07, 1.80-9.18). For the vegetative scenario, predictors included the youngest age group (30-44 years, 3.33, 1.02-10.86), male gender (3.26, 1.75-6.06), English as a second language (2.94, 1.09-7.89), Evangelical Protestant (3.72, 1.28-10.84) and Catholic (4.01, 1.72-9.36) affiliations, and low income (< $25 K).

CONCLUSION

Several demographic and decisional characteristics of US surrogate decision makers predict LST selection for patients with severe brain injury with varying degrees of poor prognosis. Surrogates concerned about the cost of medical care may nevertheless be inclined to select LST, albeit with high levels of decisional uncertainty, for patients projected to have severe disabilities.

Prognostic Research in Traumatic Brain Injury: Markers, Modeling, and Methodological Principles

Prognostic assessment in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is embedded deeply in clinical care. Considering the limitations of current prognostic indicators, there is increasing interest in understanding the role of new biomarkers, and in finding other prognostic indicators of long-term outcomes following TBI. New prognostic indicators may result in the development of more accurate prediction models that could be useful for both risk stratification and clinical decision making. We aimed to review methodological issues and provide tentative guidelines for prognostic research in TBI. Prognostic factor research focuses on the role of a specific patient or disease-related characteristic in relation to outcome. Typically, univariable relations of the prognostic factor are studied, followed by analyses adjusting for other variables related to the outcome. Following existing guidelines, we emphasize the importance of transparent reporting of patient and specimen characteristics, study design, clinical end-points, and statistical analysis. Prognostic model research considers combinations of predictors, with challenges for model specification, estimation, evaluation, validation, and presentation. We highlight modern approaches and opportunities related to missing values, exploration of non-linear effects, and assessing between-study heterogeneity. Prognostic research in TBI can be improved if key methodological principles are adhered to and when research is performed in collaboration among multiple centers to ensure generalizability.

Proceedings of the First Curing Coma Campaign NIH Symposium: Challenging the Future of Research for Coma and Disorders of Consciousness

Coma and disorders of consciousness (DoC) are highly prevalent and constitute a burden for patients, families, and society worldwide. As part of the Curing Coma Campaign, the Neurocritical Care Society partnered with the National Institutes of Health to organize a symposium bringing together experts from all over the world to develop research targets for DoC. The conference was structured along six domains: (1) defining endotype/phenotypes, (2) biomarkers, (3) proof-of-concept clinical trials, (4) neuroprognostication, (5) long-term recovery, and (6) large datasets. This proceedings paper presents actionable research targets based on the presentations and discussions that occurred at the conference. We summarize the background, main research gaps, overall goals, the panel discussion of the approach, limitations and challenges, and deliverables that were identified.

Withdrawal of Life-supporting Treatment in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Importance

There are limited data on which factors affect the critical and complex decision to withdraw life-supporting treatment (LST) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).

Objective

To determine demographic and clinical factors associated with the decision to withdraw LST in patients with sTBI.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective analysis of inpatient data from more than 825 trauma centers across the US in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from January 2013 to December 2015 included adult patients with sTBI and documentation of a decision regarding withdrawal of LST (WLST). Data analysis was conducted in September 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Factors associated with WLST in sTBI.

Results

A total of 37931 patients (9817 women [25.9%]) were included in the multivariable analysis; 7864 (20.7%) had WLST. Black patients (4806 [13.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.72; P < .001) and patients of other race (4798 [13.2%]; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001) were less likely than white patients (26 864 [73.7%]) to have WLST. Patients from hospitals in the Midwest (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .002) or Northeast (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.34; P < .001) were more likely to have WLST than patients from hospitals in the South. Patients with Medicare (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.43-1.69; P < .001) and self-pay patients (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.25-1.47; P < .001) were more likely to have WLST than patients with private insurance. Older patients and those with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores, higher Injury Severity Scores, or craniotomy were generally more likely to have WLST. Withdrawal of LST was more likely for patients with functionally dependent health status (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.08-1.58; P = .01), hematoma (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12-1.27; P < .001), dementia (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.08-1.53; P = .004), and disseminated cancer (OR, 2.82; 95% CI, 2.07-3.82; P < .001) than for patients without these conditions.

Conclusions and Relevance

Withdrawal of LST is common in sTBI and socioeconomic factors are associated with the decision to withdraw LST. These results highlight the many factors that contribute to decision-making in sTBI and demonstrate that in a complex and variable disease process, variation based on race, payment, and region presents as a potential challenge.

Inter-physician variability in strategies linked to treatment limitations after severe traumatic brain injury; proactivity or wait-and-see

BACKGROUND

Prognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient's best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians' strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase.

METHODS

Interviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians' strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making.

RESULTS

A divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital's strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team-family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The "wait-and-see" physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.

Early discrimination of cognitive motor dissociation from disorders of consciousness: pitfalls and clues

Bedside assessment of consciousness and awareness after a severe brain injury might be hampered by confounding clinical factors (i.e., pitfalls) interfering with the production of behavioral or motor responses to external stimuli. Despite the use of validated clinical scales, a high misdiagnosis rate is indeed observed. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 49 patients with severe brain injury admitted to an acute neuro-rehabilitation program. Patients' behavior was assessed using the Motor Behavior Tool and Coma Recovery Scale Revised. All patients underwent systematic assessment for pitfalls including polyneuropathy and/or myopathy and/or myelopathy, major cranial nerve palsies, non-convulsive status epilepticus, aphasia (expressive or comprehensive), cortical blindness, thalamic involvement and frontal akinetic syndrome. A high prevalence (75%) of pitfalls potentially interfering with sensory afference (polyneuropathy, myopathy, myelopathy, and sensory aphasia), motor efference (polyneuropathy, myopathy, motor aphasia, and frontal akinetic syndrome), and intrinsic brain activity (thalamic involvement and epilepsy) was found. Nonetheless, the motor behavior tool identified residual cognition (i.e. a cognitive motor dissociation condition) regardless of the presence of these pitfalls in 70% of the patients diagnosed as unresponsive using the Coma Recovery Scale Revised. On one hand, pitfalls might contribute to misdiagnosis. On the other, it could be argued that they are clues for diagnosing cognitive motor dissociation rather than true disorders of consciousness given their prominent effect on the sensory-motor input-output balance.

Early mortality in critical illness - A descriptive analysis of patients who died within 24 hours of ICU admission

PURPOSE

To describe patients who die within 24 h of ICU admission in order to better optimize care delivery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥18 years old admitted to 17 adult ICUs in Alberta, Canada from January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. Data were obtained from a provincial clinical information system and data repository. The primary outcome was incidence of ICU death within 24 h of admission. Secondary outcomes were patient and system factors associated with early death. Variables of interest were identified a priori and examined using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 19,556 patients admitted to ICU in an 18-month period, 3.3% died within 24 h, representing 29.8% of ICU deaths. Factors associated with early death were age (adjusted-OR 0.99, 95% CI, 0.9-1.0), acuity (adjusted-OR 1.3, 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), admission from the Emergency Department (ED; adjusted-OR 1.5, 95% CI, 1.1-1.9) and surgical (adjusted-OR 2.27, 95% CI, 1.4-3.6), neurologic (adjusted-OR 4.6, 95% CI, 3.1-6.9) or trauma diagnosis (adjusted-OR 6.1, 95% CI, 2.4-15.6).

CONCLUSION

Patients who die within 24 h constitute one third of ICU deaths. Age, acuity, admission from the ED and surgical, neurologic or trauma-related admission diagnosis correlate with early death.