PURPOSE: Predicting time to death following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy is difficult. Accurate predictions may better prepare families and improve the process of donation after circulatory death. METHODS: We systematically reviewed any predictive factors for time to death after withdrawal of life support therapy. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies met our inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was time to death, which was evaluated to be within 60 min in the majority of studies (13/15). Additional time endpoints evaluated included time to death within 30, 120 min, and 10 h, respectively. While most studies evaluated risk factors associated with time to death, a few derived or validated prediction tools. Consistent predictors of time to death that were identified in five or more studies included the following risk factors: controlled ventilation, oxygenation, vasopressor use, Glasgow Coma Scale/Score, and brain stem reflexes. Seven unique prediction tools were derived, validated, or both across some of the studies. These tools, at best, had only moderate sensitivity to predicting the time to death. Simultaneous withdrawal of all support and physician opinion were only evaluated in more recent studies and demonstrated promising predictor capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: While the risk factors controlled ventilation, oxygenation, vasopressors, level of consciousness, and brainstem reflexes have been most consistently found to be associated with time to death, the addition of novel predictors, such as physician opinion and simultaneous withdrawal of all support, warrant further investigation. The currently existing prediction tools are not highly sensitive. A more accurate and generalizable tool is needed to inform end-of-life care and enhance the predictions of donation after circulatory death eligibility.
PURPOSE: Predicting time to death following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy is difficult. Accurate predictions may better prepare families and improve the process of donation after circulatory death. METHODS: We systematically reviewed any predictive factors for time to death after withdrawal of life support therapy. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies met our inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was time to death, which was evaluated to be within 60 min in the majority of studies (13/15). Additional time endpoints evaluated included time to death within 30, 120 min, and 10 h, respectively. While most studies evaluated risk factors associated with time to death, a few derived or validated prediction tools. Consistent predictors of time to death that were identified in five or more studies included the following risk factors: controlled ventilation, oxygenation, vasopressor use, Glasgow Coma Scale/Score, and brain stem reflexes. Seven unique prediction tools were derived, validated, or both across some of the studies. These tools, at best, had only moderate sensitivity to predicting the time to death. Simultaneous withdrawal of all support and physician opinion were only evaluated in more recent studies and demonstrated promising predictor capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: While the risk factors controlled ventilation, oxygenation, vasopressors, level of consciousness, and brainstem reflexes have been most consistently found to be associated with time to death, the addition of novel predictors, such as physician opinion and simultaneous withdrawal of all support, warrant further investigation. The currently existing prediction tools are not highly sensitive. A more accurate and generalizable tool is needed to inform end-of-life care and enhance the predictions of donation after circulatory death eligibility.
Authors: Paul M Shore; Rong Huang; Lonnie Roy; Cindy Darnell; Heather Grein; Tammy Robertson; Lisa Thompson Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Yorick J de Groot; Hester F Lingsma; Jan Bakker; Diederik A Gommers; Ewout Steyerberg; Erwin J O Kompanje Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: D Davila; R Ciria; W Jassem; J Briceño; W Littlejohn; H Vilca-Meléndez; P Srinivasan; A Prachalias; J O'Grady; M Rela; N Heaton Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jeannie D Chan; Patsy D Treece; Ruth A Engelberg; Lauren Crowley; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Kenneth P Steinberg; J Randall Curtis Journal: Chest Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jean Carlet; Lambertus G Thijs; Massimo Antonelli; Joan Cassell; Peter Cox; Nicholas Hill; Charles Hinds; Jorge Manuel Pimentel; Konrad Reinhart; Boyd Taylor Thompson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-04-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Thanh N Huynh; Anne M Walling; Thuy X Le; Eric C Kleerup; Honghu Liu; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jonathan Lewis; James Peltier; Helen Nelson; William Snyder; Kristi Schneider; Dina Steinberger; Michael Anderson; Alexander Krichevsky; James Anderson; Jill Ellefson; Anthony D'Alessandro Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 1.065
Authors: Andreas H Kramer; Kerry Holliday; Sean Keenan; George Isac; Demetrios J Kutsogiannis; Norman M Kneteman; Adrian Robertson; Peter Nickerson; Lee Anne Tibbles Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Nathan B Scales; Christophe L Herry; Amanda van Beinum; Melanie L Hogue; Laura Hornby; Jason Shahin; Sonny Dhanani; Andrew J E Seely Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-04-07
Authors: Stein Foss; Espen Nordheim; Dag W Sørensen; Torgunn B Syversen; Karsten Midtvedt; Anders Åsberg; Thorleif Dahl; Per A Bakkan; Aksel E Foss; Odd R Geiran; Arnt E Fiane; Pål-Dag Line Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2018-06-13