Katina Zheng1,2, Stephanie Sutherland2,3, Laura Hornby2,4, Lindsay Wilson2, Sam D Shemie2,5, Aimee J Sarti3. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Critical Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Division of Critical Care, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
Background: During the 1950s, advances in critical care, and organ transplantation altered the relationship between organ failure and death. There has since been a shift away from traditional cardiocirculatory based to brain-based criteria of death, with resulting academic controversy, despite the practice being largely accepted worldwide. Our objective is to develop a comprehensive description of the current understandings of healthcare professionals regarding the meaning, definition, and determination of death. Methods: Online databases were used to identify papers published from 2003 to 2020. Additional sources were searched for conference proceedings and theses. Two reviewers screened papers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Complementary searches and review of reference lists complemented the final study selection. A data extraction instrument was developed to iteratively chart the results of the review. A qualitative approach was conducted to thematically analyze the data. Results: Seven thousand four hundred twenty-eight references were identified. In total, 75 papers met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen additional papers were added from complementary searches. Most were narratives (35%), quantitative investigations (21%), and reviews (18%). Identified themes included: (1) the historical evolution of brain death (BD), (2) persistent controversies about BD and death determination, (3) wide variability in healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes, (4) critical need for BD determination revision. Conclusions: We concluded that although BD is widely accepted, there exists variation in healthcare providers' understanding of its conceptual basis. Death determination remains a divisive issue among scholars. This review identified a need for increased opportunities for formal training on BD among healthcare providers.
Background: During the 1950s, advances in critical care, and organ transplantation altered the relationship between organ failure and death. There has since been a shift away from traditional cardiocirculatory based to brain-based criteria of death, with resulting academic controversy, despite the practice being largely accepted worldwide. Our objective is to develop a comprehensive description of the current understandings of healthcare professionals regarding the meaning, definition, and determination of death. Methods: Online databases were used to identify papers published from 2003 to 2020. Additional sources were searched for conference proceedings and theses. Two reviewers screened papers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Complementary searches and review of reference lists complemented the final study selection. A data extraction instrument was developed to iteratively chart the results of the review. A qualitative approach was conducted to thematically analyze the data. Results: Seven thousand four hundred twenty-eight references were identified. In total, 75 papers met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen additional papers were added from complementary searches. Most were narratives (35%), quantitative investigations (21%), and reviews (18%). Identified themes included: (1) the historical evolution of brain death (BD), (2) persistent controversies about BD and death determination, (3) wide variability in healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes, (4) critical need for BD determination revision. Conclusions: We concluded that although BD is widely accepted, there exists variation in healthcare providers' understanding of its conceptual basis. Death determination remains a divisive issue among scholars. This review identified a need for increased opportunities for formal training on BD among healthcare providers.
Authors: L Martínez-Alarcón; A Ríos; M J López; D Guzmán; A López-Navas; P Parrilla; P Ramírez Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Sam D Shemie; Laura Hornby; Andrew Baker; Jeanne Teitelbaum; Sylvia Torrance; Kimberly Young; Alexander M Capron; James L Bernat; Luc Noel Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David M Greer; Sam D Shemie; Ariane Lewis; Sylvia Torrance; Panayiotis Varelas; Fernando D Goldenberg; James L Bernat; Michael Souter; Mehmet Akif Topcuoglu; Anne W Alexandrov; Marie Baldisseri; Thomas Bleck; Giuseppe Citerio; Rosanne Dawson; Arnold Hoppe; Stephen Jacobe; Alex Manara; Thomas A Nakagawa; Thaddeus Mason Pope; William Silvester; David Thomson; Hussain Al Rahma; Rafael Badenes; Andrew J Baker; Vladimir Cerny; Cherylee Chang; Tiffany R Chang; Elena Gnedovskaya; Moon-Ku Han; Stephen Honeybul; Edgar Jimenez; Yasuhiro Kuroda; Gang Liu; Uzzwal Kumar Mallick; Victoria Marquevich; Jorge Mejia-Mantilla; Michael Piradov; Sarah Quayyum; Gentle Sunder Shrestha; Ying-Ying Su; Shelly D Timmons; Jeanne Teitelbaum; Walter Videtta; Kapil Zirpe; Gene Sung Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272