Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Early neurorehabilitation improves outcomes in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) after brain injury, but its applicability in COVID-19 is unknown. We describe our experience implementing an early neurorehabilitation protocol for patients with COVID-19-associated DoC in the intensive care unit (ICU) and evaluate factors associated with recovery. METHODS:During the initial COVID-19 surge in New York City between March 10 and May 20, 2020, faced with a disproportionately high number of ICU patients with prolonged unresponsiveness, we developed and implemented an early neurorehabilitation protocol, applying standard practices from brain injury rehabilitation care to the ICU setting. Twenty-one patients with delayed recovery of consciousness after severe COVID-19 participated in a pilot early neurorehabilitation program that included serial Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) assessments, multimodal treatment, and access to clinicians specializing in brain injury medicine. We retrospectively compared clinical features of patients who did and did not recover to the minimally conscious state (MCS) or better, defined as a CRS-R total score (TS) ≥ 8, before discharge. We additionally examined factors associated with best CRS-R TS, last CRS-R TS, hospital length of stay, and time on mechanical ventilation. RESULTS:Patients underwent CRS-R assessments a median of six (interquartile range [IQR] 3-10) times before discharge, beginning a median of 48 days (IQR 40-55) from admission. Twelve (57%) patients recovered to MCS after a median of 8 days (IQR 2-14) off continuous sedation; they had lower body mass index (p = 0.009), lower peak serum C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.023), higher minimum arterial partial pressure of oxygen (p = 0.028), and earlier fentanyl discontinuation (p = 0.018). CRS-R scores fluctuated over time, and the best CRS-R TS was significantly higher than the last CRS-R TS (median 8 [IQR 5-23] vs. 5 [IQR 3-18], p = 0.002). Earlier fentanyl (p = 0.001) and neuromuscular blockade (p = 0.015) discontinuation correlated with a higher last CRS-R TS. CONCLUSIONS:More than half of our cohort of patients with prolonged unresponsiveness following severe COVID-19 recovered to MCS or better before hospital discharge, achieving a clinical benchmark known to have relatively favorable long-term prognostic implications in DoC of other etiologies. Hypoxia, systemic inflammation, sedation, and neuromuscular blockade may impact diagnostic assessment and prognosis, and fluctuations in level of consciousness make serial assessments essential. Early neurorehabilitation of these patients in the ICU can be accomplished but is associated with unique challenges. Further research should evaluate factors associated with longer-term neurologic recovery and benefits of early rehabilitation in patients with severe COVID-19.

Cardiac arrest can cause hypoxic-anoxic ischemic brain injury due to signaling cascades that lead to damaged cell membranes and vital cellular organelles, resulting in cell death in the setting of low or no oxygen. Some brain areas are more prone to damage than others, so patients with hypoxic-anoxic ischemic brain injury present with several outcomes, including reduced level of consciousness or alertness, memory deficits, uncoordinated movements, and seizures. Some patients may have mild deficits, while others may have such severe injury that it can progress to brain death. High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a proven technique to improve outcome after cardiac arrest, although morbidity and mortality remain high. Induced hypothermia, which involves artificially cooling the body immediately after cardiac arrest, may reduce injury to the brain and improve morbidity and mortality. Neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest is challenging and requires a multimodal approach involving clinical neurologic examinations, brain imaging, electrical studies to assess brain activity, and biomarkers to predict outcome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:This article describes the prerequisites for brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), clinical evaluation for BD/DNC (including apnea testing), use of ancillary testing, and challenges associated with BD/DNC determination in adult and pediatric patients. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Although death determination should be consistent among physicians and across hospitals, states, and countries to ensure that someone who is declared dead in one place would not be considered alive elsewhere, variability exists in the prerequisites, clinical evaluation, apnea testing, and use of ancillary testing to evaluate for BD/DNC. Confusion also exists about performance of an evaluation for BD/DNC in challenging clinical scenarios, such as for a patient who is on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or a patient who was treated with therapeutic hypothermia. This prompted the creation of the World Brain Death Project, which published an international consensus statement on BD/DNC that has been endorsed by five world federations and 27 medical societies from across the globe. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:The World Brain Death Project consensus statement is intended to provide guidance for professional societies and countries to revise or develop their own protocols on BD/DNC, taking into consideration local laws, culture, and resource availability; however, it does not replace local medical standards. To that end, pending publication of an updated guideline on determination of BD/DNC across the lifespan, the currently accepted medical standards for BD/DNC in the United States are the 2010 American Academy of Neurology standard for determination of BD/DNC in adults and the 2011 Society of Critical Care Medicine/American Academy of Pediatrics/Child Neurology Society standard for determination of BD/DNC in infants and children.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Neurologic determination of death (NDD) is legally accepted as death in Canada but remains susceptible to misunderstandings. In some cases, families request continued organ support after NDD. Conflicts can escalate to formal legal challenges, causing emotional, financial, and moral distress for all involved. We describe prevalence, characteristics, and common experiences with requests for continued organ support following NDD in Canada. METHODS:Mixed-methods design combining anonymous online survey with semi-structured interviews of Canadian critical care physicians (448 practitioners, adult and pediatric). RESULTS:One hundred and six physicians responded to the survey and 12 participated in an interview. Fifty-two percent (55/106) of respondents had encountered a request for continued organ support after NDD within two years, 47% (26/55) of which involved threat of legal action. Requests for continued support following NDD ranged from appeals for time for family to gather before ventilator removal to disagreement with the concept of NDD. Common responses to requests included: consultation with an additional physician (54%), consultation with spiritual services (41%), and delay of one to three days for NDD acceptance (49%). Respondents with prior experience were less likely to recommend ancillary tests (P = 0.004) or consultation with bioethics services (P = 0.004). Qualitative analysis revealed perceptions that requests for continued organ support were driven by mistrust, tensions surrounding decision-making, and cultural differences rather than a lack of specific information about NDD. CONCLUSIONS:Family requests for continued somatic support following NDD were encountered by half our sample of Canadian critical care physicians. Mitigation strategies require attention to the multifaceted social contexts surrounding these complex scenarios.