Faculty Bibliography

Although pediatric brain death guidelines stipulate when ancillary testing should be used during brain death determination, little is known about the way these recommendations are implemented in clinical practice. We conducted a survey of pediatric intensivists and neurologists in the United States on the use of ancillary testing. Although most respondents noted they only performed an ancillary test if the clinical examination and apnea test could not be completed, 20% of 195 respondents performed an ancillary test for other reasons, including (1) to convince a family that objected to the brain death determination that a patient is truly dead (n=21), (2) personal preference (n=14), and (3) institutional requirement (n=5). Our findings suggest that pediatricians use ancillary tests for a variety of reasons during brain death determination. Medical societies and governmental regulatory bodies must reinforce the need for homogeneity in practice.

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.

Objective: To evaluate which factors are associated with use of single brain death exam (SBD) vs two (dual) brain death exams (

Objective: To evaluate potential factors that played a role in the consent rate in a large tertiary hospital over a period of 11 years. Background: Many patient, family and hospital factors have been associated with obtaining consent for organ donation after brain death (BD), including decoupling, trained requester and translation. Design/Methods: We evaluated all BD declarations in our hospital between 2006 and 2016 regarding consent for donation. We cross-matched the hospital electronic medical records with the records of the local organ procurement organization to identify this population. Results: The Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) spoke to 199 families (58.7% African American (AA), 47.2% female, mean age of 48.2 years). Another 39 families were never approached. There was a 71.4% consent rate. There was no significant relationship between sex, admission diagnosis, ICU (neuro vs. medical vs. surgical), physician speciality (neurology vs. other), time from event to BD declaration or religion and decision to donate. Families were more likely to consent to donation if the patient was non-AA (87.3% vs 62% if AA, p<0.001), had developed diabetes insipidus (72.3% vs 27.7%, p=0.008), was younger (46.6+/-17.3 vs 52.1+/-15.6 years, p= 0.039), had a lower BUN at the time of death (17.7+/-16.7 vs 24.4+/-20.3 mg/dL, p=0.027), and had a higher PaO2 at the time of the apnea test (225.2+/-129.8 vs 185.9+/-111.8 mmHg, p=0.041). In a logistic regression model, only AA race and PaO2 independently predicted refusal of donation (odds, 95%CI, 4.9, 2-12.1, p=0.001 and 0.996, 0.993-0.999, p= 0.013, respectively). Conclusions: Although the majority of BD patients in this large series were AA, their families were almost 5 times less likely to consent for organ donation than non-AA families. There is an urgent need to explore the reasons for low donation rates in this population

We describe two unusual cases of cardiopulmonary death in mechanically ventilated patients in the neurological intensive care unit. After cardiac arrest, both patients were pulseless for a protracted period. Upon extubation, both developed agonal movements (gasping respiration) resembling life. We discuss these cases and the literature on the ethical and medical controversies associated with determining time of cardiopulmonary death. We conclude that there is rarely a single moment when all of a patient's physiological functions stop working at once. This can pose a challenge for determining the exact moment of death.

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.

BACKGROUND: Patients without surrogates are referred to as "unbefriended." Because these patients do not have representatives to assist with medical decision-making, patient autonomy and self-determination, fundamental concepts of American healthcare, are jeopardized. METHODS: We present a case of an unbefriended patient in a vegetative state and discuss the ethical and legal complications associated with management of unbefriended patients. RESULTS: An unbefriended patient was admitted to our hospital with a cardiac arrest in the setting of an intracerebral hemorrhage. Despite aggressive medical and surgical management, he suffered significant brain injury and was in a vegetative state. In our state, unless an unbefriended patient will imminently die despite medical therapy, all measures must be taken to prolong the patient's life, so a tracheostomy and feeding tube were placed and he was transferred to a long-term care facility. The process for making decisions on behalf of unbefriended patients is complicated and varies throughout the country. Some potential ways to avoid these complex situations include: early conversations about treatment wishes while patients have capacity, mandatory advance directives, and increased training and reimbursement for physicians to proactively have end-of-life discussions. CONCLUSION: The unbefriended are one of the most high-risk patient groups. Because our patient had no surrogate with whom we could have a goals-of-care discussion, we were obligated to continue aggressive management despite knowing it would prolong, but not improve, his life. Proactive preventative measures to identify and document end-of-life wishes may make management of these patients less ethically and legally complicated.