J J Chang1, G Tsivgoulis2, A H Katsanos3, M D Malkoff4, A V Alexandrov4. 1. From the Department of Neurology (J.J.C., G.T., M.D.M., A.V.A.), University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee jjwchang@hotmail.com. 2. From the Department of Neurology (J.J.C., G.T., M.D.M., A.V.A.), University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee Second Department of Neurology (G.T., A.H.K.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece International Clinical Research Center (G.T.), St. Anne's University Hospital in Brno, Czech Republic. 3. Second Department of Neurology (G.T., A.H.K.), Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Department of Neurology (A.H.K.), University of Ioannina, School of Medicine, Ioannina, Epirus, Greece. 4. From the Department of Neurology (J.J.C., G.T., M.D.M., A.V.A.), University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Transcranial Doppler is a useful ancillary test for brain death confirmation because it is safe, noninvasive, and done at the bedside. Transcranial Doppler confirms brain death by evaluating cerebral circulatory arrest. Case series studies have generally reported good correlations between transcranial Doppler confirmation of cerebral circulatory arrest and clinical confirmation of brain death. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of transcranial Doppler as an ancillary test in brain death confirmation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis to compare the sensitivity and specificity of transcranial Doppler confirmation of cerebral circulatory arrest, by using clinical confirmation of brain death as the criterion standard. RESULTS: We identified 22 eligible studies (1671 patients total), dating from 1987 to 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates from 12 study protocols that reported data for the calculation of both values were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99), respectively. Between-study differences in the diagnostic performance of transcranial Doppler were found for both sensitivity (I(2) = 76%; P < .001) and specificity (I(2) = 74.3%; P < .001). The threshold effect was not significant (Spearman r = -0.173; P = .612). The area under the curve with the corresponding standard error (SE) was 0.964 ± 0.018, while index Q test ± SE was estimated at 0.910 ± 0.028. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that transcranial Doppler is a highly accurate ancillary test for brain death confirmation. However, transcranial Doppler evaluates cerebral circulatory arrest rather than brain stem function, and this limitation needs to be taken into account when interpreting the results of this meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Transcranial Doppler is a useful ancillary test for brain death confirmation because it is safe, noninvasive, and done at the bedside. Transcranial Doppler confirms brain death by evaluating cerebral circulatory arrest. Case series studies have generally reported good correlations between transcranial Doppler confirmation of cerebral circulatory arrest and clinical confirmation of brain death. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of transcranial Doppler as an ancillary test in brain death confirmation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis to compare the sensitivity and specificity of transcranial Doppler confirmation of cerebral circulatory arrest, by using clinical confirmation of brain death as the criterion standard. RESULTS: We identified 22 eligible studies (1671 patients total), dating from 1987 to 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates from 12 study protocols that reported data for the calculation of both values were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99), respectively. Between-study differences in the diagnostic performance of transcranial Doppler were found for both sensitivity (I(2) = 76%; P < .001) and specificity (I(2) = 74.3%; P < .001). The threshold effect was not significant (Spearman r = -0.173; P = .612). The area under the curve with the corresponding standard error (SE) was 0.964 ± 0.018, while index Q test ± SE was estimated at 0.910 ± 0.028. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that transcranial Doppler is a highly accurate ancillary test for brain death confirmation. However, transcranial Doppler evaluates cerebral circulatory arrest rather than brain stem function, and this limitation needs to be taken into account when interpreting the results of this meta-analysis.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Stefan Welschehold; Stephan Boor; Katharina Reuland; Frank Thömke; Thomas Kerz; André Reuland; Christian Beyer; Martin Gartenschläger; Wolfgang Wagner; Alf Giese; Wibke Müller-Forell Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Chiara Robba; Alberto Goffi; Thomas Geeraerts; Danilo Cardim; Gabriele Via; Marek Czosnyka; Soojin Park; Aarti Sarwal; Llewellyn Padayachy; Frank Rasulo; Giuseppe Citerio Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Miriam E Peckham; Jeffrey S Anderson; Ulrich A Rassner; Lubdha M Shah; Peter J Hinckley; Adam de Havenon; Seong-Eun Kim; J Scott McNally Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Chiara Robba; Adrian Wong; Daniele Poole; Ashraf Al Tayar; Robert T Arntfield; Michelle S Chew; Francesco Corradi; Ghislaine Douflé; Alberto Goffi; Massimo Lamperti; Paul Mayo; Antonio Messina; Silvia Mongodi; Mangala Narasimhan; Corina Puppo; Aarti Sarwal; Michel Slama; Fabio S Taccone; Philippe Vignon; Antoine Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 41.787