U Walter1, U Brüderlein, M Gloger, S Mann, U Walther. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Gehlsheimer Str. 20, 18147, Rostock, Deutschland, uwe.walter@med.uni-rostock.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before the clinical diagnosis of brain death is made, toxicological analyses are often performed for the exclusion of effective serum levels of previously applied sedating drugs. For propofol and sufentanil there are no uniform recommendations for the usage of toxicology test results. OBJECTIVES: To develop a standard practice in the diagnosis of brain death after therapeutic application of one of these drugs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the current literature and the available analytical assays, an ad hoc working group consisting of specialists in toxicology and intensive care medicine compiled recommendations for the usage of toxicological analytics in the diagnosis of brain death at the Rostock University Hospital. RESULTS: For propofol, current analytical assays allow the quantification of serum concentrations of 0.2 μg/ml and lower; the execution of clinical brain death diagnostics is recommended by the ad hoc group only at propofol serum levels lower than 0.4 μg/ml. For sufentanil, the currently prevalent assays set lower determination limits of about 0.2 ng/ml in serum and 0.1 ng/ml in urine, which is above the cautiously adopted lower therapeutic serum concentration of 0.02 ng/ml. Therefore after negative determination of sufentanil (< 0.2 ng/ml) in blood serum, the following alternative procedures are recommended: (1) the execution of clinical brain death diagnostics under administration of naloxone; or (2) at intact renal function the additional negative determination of sufentanil in urine (< 0.1 ng/ml). If an assay allowing the detection of sufentanil at ≤ 0.01 ng/ml is available, brain death diagnostics should be carried out only at a serum level lower than 0.02 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: These recommendations may serve as a proposal for similar standards in other hospitals.
BACKGROUND: Before the clinical diagnosis of brain death is made, toxicological analyses are often performed for the exclusion of effective serum levels of previously applied sedating drugs. For propofol and sufentanil there are no uniform recommendations for the usage of toxicology test results. OBJECTIVES: To develop a standard practice in the diagnosis of brain death after therapeutic application of one of these drugs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the current literature and the available analytical assays, an ad hoc working group consisting of specialists in toxicology and intensive care medicine compiled recommendations for the usage of toxicological analytics in the diagnosis of brain death at the Rostock University Hospital. RESULTS: For propofol, current analytical assays allow the quantification of serum concentrations of 0.2 μg/ml and lower; the execution of clinical brain death diagnostics is recommended by the ad hoc group only at propofol serum levels lower than 0.4 μg/ml. For sufentanil, the currently prevalent assays set lower determination limits of about 0.2 ng/ml in serum and 0.1 ng/ml in urine, which is above the cautiously adopted lower therapeutic serum concentration of 0.02 ng/ml. Therefore after negative determination of sufentanil (< 0.2 ng/ml) in blood serum, the following alternative procedures are recommended: (1) the execution of clinical brain death diagnostics under administration of naloxone; or (2) at intact renal function the additional negative determination of sufentanil in urine (< 0.1 ng/ml). If an assay allowing the detection of sufentanil at ≤ 0.01 ng/ml is available, brain death diagnostics should be carried out only at a serum level lower than 0.02 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: These recommendations may serve as a proposal for similar standards in other hospitals.
Authors: J U Harrer; M Nedelmann; J Eyding; M Ritter; U Schminke; G Schulte-Altedorneburg; M Köhrmann; F Schlachetzki Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: R J Woestenborghs; P M Timmerman; M L Cornelissen; F A Van Rompaey; E Gepts; F Camu; J J Heykants; D R Stanski Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Bartosz Kudliński; Marta Trosiak; Magdalena Wojciech; Gabriel Zaborniak; Jagoda Kania; Aleksandra Buczek; Olga Fedorowicz; Marek Myślak Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-17