Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Patients with the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk for thrombotic events and mortality. Various anticoagulation regimens are now being considered for these patients. Anticoagulation is known to increase the risk for adverse bleeding events, of which intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the most feared. We present a retrospective study of 33 patients positive for COVID-19 with neuroimaging-documented ICH and examine anticoagulation use in this population. METHODS:Patients over the age of 18 with confirmed COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of ICH were included in this study. Evidence of hemorrhage was confirmed and categorized by a fellowship trained neuroradiologist. Electronic health records were analyzed for patient information including demographic data, medical history, hospital course, laboratory values, and medications. RESULTS:We identified 33 COVID-19 positive patients with ICH, mean age 61.6 years (range 37-83 years), 21.2% of whom were female. Parenchymal hemorrhages with mass effect and herniation occurred in 5 (15.2%) patients, with a 100% mortality rate. Of the remaining 28 patients with ICH, 7 (25%) had punctate hemorrhages, 17 (60.7%) had small- moderate size hemorrhages, and 4 (14.3%) had a large single site of hemorrhage without evidence of herniation. Almost all patients received either therapeutic dose anticoagulation (in 22 [66.7%] patients) or prophylactic dose (in 3 [9.1] patients) prior to ICH discovery. CONCLUSIONS:Anticoagulation therapy may be considered in patients with COVID-19 though the risk of ICH should be taken into account when developing a treatment regimen.

Patients, clinicians, and hospitals have undergone monumental changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. This time of troubles has forced us to consider the fundamental obligations that neurologists have to our own individual patients as well as the greater community. By returning to our fundamental understanding of these duties we can ensure that we are providing the most ethically appropriate contingency and crisis care possible. We recommend specific adaptations to both the inpatient and outpatient settings, as well as changes to medical and trainee education. Furthermore, we explore the daunting but potentially necessary implementation of scare resource allocation protocols. As the pandemic evolves, we will need to adapt continuously to these rapidly changing circumstances and consider both national and regional standards and variation.

OBJECTIVE:To identify similarities and differences in protocols on determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) around the world. METHODS:We collected and reviewed official national BD/DNC protocols from contacts around the world between January 2018 and April 2019. RESULTS:We communicated with contacts in 136 countries and found that 83 (61% of countries with contacts identified, 42% of the world) had BD/DNC protocols, 78 of which were unique. Protocols addressed the following prerequisites and provided differing instructions: drug clearance (64, 82%), temperature (61, 78%), laboratory values (56, 72%), observation period (37, 47%), and blood pressure (34, 44%). Protocols did not consistently identify the same components for the clinical examination of brain death; 70 (90%) included coma, 70 (90%) included the pupillary reflex, 68 (87%) included the corneal reflex, 67 (86%) included the oculovestibular reflex, 64 (82%) included the gag reflex, 62 (79%) included the cough reflex, 58 (74%) included the oculocephalic reflex, 37 (47%) included noxious stimulation to the face, and 22 (28%) included noxious stimulation to the limbs. Apnea testing was mentioned in 71 (91%) protocols; there was variability in the technique and target across protocols. Ancillary testing was included as a requirement for all determinations of BD/DNC in 22 (28%) protocols. CONCLUSIONS:There is considerable variability in BD/DNC determination protocols around the world. Medical standards for death should be the same everywhere. We recommend that a worldwide consensus be reached on the minimum standards for BD/DNC.

OBJECTIVE:To account for factors affecting family approach and consent for organ donation after brain death (BD). MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:A prospective cohort study in a large, tertiary, urban hospital, where we reviewed the database of all brain-dead patients between January 2006 and December 2017 cross-matched with local organ procurement organization (OPO) records. RESULTS:Two-hundred sixty-six brain-dead patients were included (55% African Americans (AAs)). Two-hundred twenty-two were approached for donation. The reason for not approaching families was medical exclusion due to cancer or multi-organ failure. Patient demographics or religion were not associated with approaching families. Lower creatinine level was the only independent factor associated with higher approach. Consent rate for organ donation was 72.5%. Consent was significantly higher in Caucasians (89% vs 62% for AAs), younger patients (46.7 vs 52.5 years old), in patients with lower creatinine at time of death (1.7 vs 2.4 mg/dL), patients for whom apnea testing was completed (92% vs 80%) and patients with diabetes insipidus (DI) (72% vs 54%). There was no significant relationship between consent and patient gender, admission diagnosis, number of examinations or completion of a confirmatory test. In a logistic regression model, only AA race independently predicted consent for donation (odds, 95% CI, 0.27, 0.12-0.57 p < .001). In a different model, apnea test completion was an additional independent predictor (3.66, 1.28-10.5 p = .015). CONCLUSIONS:Approaching families for organ donation consent was associated with medical suitability only and not with demographic or religious characteristics. AAs were 3.7 times less likely to consent for organ donation than non-AAs. Completion of apnea testing was associated with higher consent rates, an observation that needs to be explored in future studies documenting the effect on bedside family presence during this test.

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated the need for frequent end-of-life discussions. The circumstances surrounding these conversations are quite atypical. Here, I describe one such goals-of-care discussion during the pandemic and how I relied on the precedent of prior goals-of-care discussions to guide me through an unprecedented situation.

Background/UNASSIGNED:We explored factors associated with admission and discharge code status after nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We extracted data from patients admitted to our institution between January 1, 2013, and March 1, 2016 with nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage who had a discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 4 to 6. We reviewed data based on admission and discharge code status. Results/UNASSIGNED:.06). There was no significant difference between discharge code status and sex, age, marital status, premorbid mRS, discharge GCS, or bleed severity. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Limitation of code status after nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage appears to be associated with older age, white race, worse APACHE II score, and active cancer. The role of palliative care after intracranial hemorrhage and the racial disparity in limitation and de-escalation of treatment deserves further exploration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We sought to 1) identify countries in Asia and the Pacific that have protocols for the determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) and 2) review the similarities and differences of these protocols in different countries. METHODS:Between January 2018 and April 2019, we attempted to communicate with contacts in the 57 countries in Asia and the Pacific to determine if they had official national BD/DNC protocols. We reviewed and compared the identified protocols. RESULTS:We identified contacts for 40 (70%) of the 57 countries in Asia and the Pacific, and successfully communicated with 37 of them (93% of countries with contacts identified, 65% of countries in Asia and the Pacific). We found that 24 of the 37 countries had BD/DNC protocols. Two (13%) of the 16 protocols that provided a definition of death referred to brainstem death. Kazakhstan and Israel required only 1 examination to declare BD/DNC, while 10 (71%) of the other 14 protocols required 2 examinations separated by 6-48 hours. The prerequisites, clinical examination, apnea testing procedure, and indications for/selection of ancillary tests varied. Ancillary testing was required for all determinations of BD/DNC in five (21%) countries. Thirteen (54%) of the protocols included information about the time of death, while 12 (50%) of them provided instructions about discontinuation of organ support. CONCLUSIONS:The protocols for conducting a BD/DNC determination vary markedly among countries in Asia and the Pacific. Since it is optimal to have internationally and intranationally consistent BD/DNC protocols, efforts should be made to harmonize protocols both within this region and worldwide.