Literature DB >> 35900967

Optimal duration of the apnea test for determining brain death: Benefit of the short-term apnea test.

Seung Min Baik1,2, Jin Park3, Tae Yoon Kim4, Kyung Sook Hong4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The criteria for brain death determination have not been unified globally, and there is no global consensus on the apnea test, which is essential for determining brain death. Since the apnea test is associated with many complications, we aimed to determine an optimal duration of the apnea test.
METHODS: We analyzed the results of the apnea test performed for brain death determination between August 2013 and February 2021 at a single institution in South Korea. Elevations in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide and mean arterial blood pressure fluctuations over time in the apnea test were recorded.
RESULTS: In the 1st and 2nd tests, the mean partial pressure of carbon dioxide increased by more than 20 mmHg at 3 min after the apnea test compared to before the test (P < 0.05). At 4 min in the 1st test and 5 min in the 2nd test, the partial pressure of carbon dioxide exceeded 60 mmHg (P < 0.05). The fluctuation in the mean arterial blood pressure observed for 5 min during the apnea test was not significant. There was no significant fluctuation in the mean arterial blood pressure over time in the apnea test between patients with normal chest radiography findings and those with abnormal chest radiography findings (P = 0.888).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study proposes that a short-term apnea test protocol is valid for the preservation of organs for donation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35900967      PMCID: PMC9333206          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.752


Introduction

Brain death was first described in 1959 and is defined as the irreversible loss of all identifiable brain functions, including those of the brainstem [1,2]. Although it is an established medical concept, there is no global consensus regarding the determination of brain death [3]. According to the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines, the following criteria must be met when determining brain death: presence of an irreversible etiology; neurologically confirmed coma, loss of the brainstem reflex, and apnea test positivity; and positive optional tests (no cerebral blood flow on angiography or transcranial Doppler ultrasound [TCD], no electrical activity on electroencephalography [EEG], and no uptake of technetium on brain scan) [4]. The apnea test is essential for clinically determining brain death [4]. Its main purpose is to demonstrate the absence of a respiration control system reflex in the brainstem when stimulation of respiration occurs with an increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2). Regarding the apnea test and positive criteria for the apnea test in South Korea [5], pre-oxygenation is first achieved with 100% oxygen (O2) or 95% O2 and 5% CO2 via a mechanical ventilator for 10 min. Thereafter, the mechanical ventilator is removed, and 6 L/min of 100% O2 is supplied through an endotracheal tube. If spontaneous respiration is not induced although PaCO2 has risen to ≥50 mmHg as determined by blood gas analysis, the apnea test is deemed positive. The apnea test in the United States slightly differs from that in South Korea [4]. In the United States, after removing the mechanical ventilator, there is observation for an apnea pattern for 8 to 10 minutes. Thereafter, arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) is performed, and the apnea test is considered positive if PaCO2 exceeds 60 mmHg or increases by ≥20 mmHg above the reference value. The differences between the apnea tests of the two countries mainly focus on the test duration as well as PaCO2, which is a criterion for determining a positive apnea test. In Japan, the standard duration for the apnea test is unspecified, but the PaCO2 is the same as in the United States [6]. A survey of 80 countries showed no agreement between continents and countries, and even within one country regarding brain death diagnostic criteria and apnea test modalities for brain death [3]. There were differences regarding existing laws and guidelines related to determining brain death, number of medical staff for the determination, observation duration, test for determination, and apnea test procedure. Factors other than the implementation patterns of the apnea test are closely related to ethical considerations. In other words, there is no global consensus on the implementation of the apnea test, although such a consensus seems necessary for patient safety. The implementation pattern of the apnea test is more closely related to the condition of the patient waiting for brain death determination. This may be due to complications of the apnea test, which include hypoxemia, hypotension, acidemia, hypercapnia, increased intracranial pressure, pulmonary hypertension, and arrhythmias [7-14]. Compared to the conventional apnea test, the modified apnea test (MAT) maintains positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and can prevent lung atelectrauma and hypoxia even after mechanical ventilator removal [10]. However, MAT does not reduce other hypercapnia- and hypoxia-induced complications. These complications can result in damage to organs intended for donation. Since determining brain death is related to stopping unnecessary life support and also to organ donation, organ preservation should be considered while managing potential brain death patients for organ donation [15]. Therefore, identifying the most effective and safest apnea test method that allows the maintenance of hemodynamic stability without interfering with the brain death determination process can result in better post-transplantation outcomes. The study aimed to suggest an appropriate apnea test duration by reviewing the records of a single institution in South Korea.

Materials and methods

Patients and collected data

Patients who underwent brain death management for organ donation between August 2013 and February 2021 were enrolled. The most appropriate routine protocol for brain death management was implemented for all patients. The following demographic and clinical data were obtained: sex, age, cause of brain death, total duration of hospitalization, brain death management period, Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, plateau pressure, norepinephrine infusion rate, and chest radiography findings. Chest radiography findings were classified into normal and abnormal findings. The abnormal findings group included one or more of the following: pneumonia, pulmonary edema, pleural effusion, atelectasis, bronchiectasis, and emphysema. In addition, when cardiac donation was planned or cardiac function evaluation was necessary during management, echocardiography was performed, and ejection fraction (EF) values were recorded.

Apnea test protocol

The apnea test protocol used in our institution employs MAT. The apnea test to determine brain death was performed twice, at least 6 hours apart. Ten minutes before the apnea test, pre-oxygenation was performed with the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) set to 100%. In the presence of the attending physician, the mechanical ventilator was removed from the patient, and a bag valve mask equipped with a PEEP valve was connected. The O2 supplied had an FiO2 of 100% and flow rate of 6 L/min. After applying the bag valve mask to the patient, we confirmed that the patient had apnea and performed an ABGA test every minute from 1 min to 5 min or more if possible. The attending physician monitored the patient’s condition during the apnea test and recorded the arterial blood pressure (ABP) and pulse rate every minute during blood sampling. When the PaCO2 level met the positive criteria for an apnea test, blood sampling was stopped and a mechanical ventilator was connected.

Statistical analysis

All numeric variables, such as age, ABGA results, and variables related to hemodynamic status, are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables, such as sex, cause of brain death, and chest radiography findings, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. ABGA results, serum lactate level, and hemodynamic status observed every minute, were analyzed and compared with baseline results using the paired t-test. Serial changes in PaCO2 and partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) in the 1st and 2nd apnea tests were analyzed by one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Additionally, differences in plateau pressure and norepinephrine infusion rate between the pre- and post-apnea tests were analyzed using a paired t-test. The serial effect of differences in chest radiography findings on hemodynamic status during the apnea test was analyzed by two-way repeated-measures ANOVA. The statistical analysis was conducted and graphs were created using SPSS version 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Statistical significance was designated as a significance level (P value) less than 0.05.

Ethics

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital (approval number: EUMC 2021-02-027). The requirement of informed consent was waived because of the retrospective design of the study.

Results

Eighty-six patients who underwent the apnea test to determine brain death between August 2013 and February 2021 were enrolled in this study. Among them, 55 (64%) were men and 31 (36%) were women. The average age of the patients was 51.8 ± 13.8 years. Non-traumatic hemorrhage was the most common cause of brain death (n = 33, 38.4%). The total duration of hospitalization and the brain death management period were 14.4 ± 32.8 days and 2.8 ± 0.9 days, respectively. A mechanical ventilator was applied to all patients, and the average plateau pressure was 20.40 ± 5.33 cmH2O. On chest radiography, 21 patients (24.4%) had normal findings and 65 patients (75.6%) had abnormal findings. Echocardiography was performed in 73 of the 86 enrolled patients: 16 (21.9%) and 57 (78.1%) patients had EF <50% and ≥50%, respectively. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1. In the 1st apnea test, 3 patients underwent the test for up to 6 min, 2 patients for up to 8 min, 1 patient for up to 9 min, and 1 patient for up to 10 min. In the 2nd apnea test, 5 patients underwent the test for up to 6 min and 1 patient for up to 7 min.
Table 1

Demographics and clinical characteristics.

Variablesn = 86
Sex (male:female)55 (64%):31 (36%)
Age (yr)51.8±13.8
BMI (kg/m2)23.22±3.67
Cause of brain death
 Traumatic intracranial hemorrhage18 (20.9%)
 Non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage33 (38.4%)
 Cerebral infarction3 (3.5%)
 Encephalitis2 (2.3%)
 Cardiac arrest12 (14.0%)
 Hanging-induced hypoxic brain injury17 (19.8%)
 Drawning-induced hypoxic brain injury1 (1.2%)
Total length of hospitalization (days)14.4 ±32.8
Brain death management period (days)2.8±0.9
APACHE II score31.6±7.1
Plateau pressure (cmH2O)20.40±5.334
Norepinephrine infusion rate (mcg/kg/min)0.14±0.13
Chest X-ray finding
 Normal finding21 (24.4%)
 Abnormal findingsa65 (75.6%)
Ejection fraction on echocardiography (n = 73)
 <50%16 (21.9%)
 ≥50%57 (78.1%)

BMI: Body mass index; APACHE II: Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation.

aAbnormal findings: Pneumonia, pulmonary edema, pleural effusion, atelectasis, bronchiectasis and emphysema.

BMI: Body mass index; APACHE II: Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation. aAbnormal findings: Pneumonia, pulmonary edema, pleural effusion, atelectasis, bronchiectasis and emphysema. There were significant changes in pH and PaCO2 levels compared to the baseline results. At 3 minutes in the 1st and 2nd apnea tests, PaCO2 exceeded the baseline value by 20 mmHg (P < 0.05) (Table 2). There was no significant change in the mean ABP during the 5-minute apnea test. The ABGA results, hemodynamic status, and serum lactate levels observed during the apnea test are presented in Table 2. In this study, the PaCO2 level exceeded 60 mmHg within 5 min in 76 (88.4%) and 81 (94.2%) cases of the 1st and 2nd apnea tests, respectively.
Table 2

1st and 2nd apnea test results.

VariablesValuesaΔValuesa
ABGABaseline resultsΔ1minute results (P Value)Δ2minute results (P Value)Δ3minute results (P Value)Δ4minute results (P Value)Δ5minute results (P Value)
1st apnea test
 pH7.323 ± 0.081-0.066 ± 0.040(< 0.05*)-0.106 ± 0.023(< 0.05*)-0.138 ± 0.034(< 0.05*)-0.152 ± 0.031(< 0.05*)-0.166 ± 0.050(< 0.05*)
 PaCO2 (mmHg)41.4 ± 4.213.01 ± 4.27(< 0.05*)15.66 ± 4.36(< 0.05*)20.60 ± 5.81(< 0.05*)22.59 ± 6.62(< 0.05*)25.18 ± 9.07(< 0.05*)
 PaO2 (mmHg)327.0 ± 150.356.05 ± 86.74(< 0.05*)-47.17 ± 103.22(< 0.05*)-59.77 ± 159.35(< 0.05*)-114.32 ±113.05(< 0.05*)-88.89 ± 98.75(< 0.05*)
 HCO3 (mEq/L)21.2 ± 3.82.59 ± 1.91(< 0.05*)2.03 ± 2.18(< 0.05*)1.91 ± 1.60(< 0.05*)1.41 ± 5.41(0.137)2.15 ± 1.89(< 0.05*)
 SaO2 (%)97.9 ± 3.50.89 ± 2.71(0.168)-2.49 ± 9.74(0.115)-3.78 ± 7.54(< 0.05*)-2.42 ± 5.64(< 0.05*)-3.41 ± 9.18(0.187)
 Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg)97 ± 219.24 ± 26.12(0.164)4.91 ± 17.48(0.106)-1.61 ± 22.82(0.635)-10.657 ± 34.70(0.074)-6.62 ± 30.92(0.455)
 Pulse rate (bpm)99 ± 253.00 ± 6.36(0.070)2.34 ± 10.79(0.208)3.80 ± 10.02(< 0.05*)4.09 ± 9.85(< 0.05*)0.77 ± 11.02(0.806)
 Serum lactate level (mg/dL)13.9 ± 7.90.19 ± 2.21(0.713)-0.59 ± 1.78(< 0.05*)-1.12 ± 2.25(< 0.05*)-0.90 ± 2.20(< 0.05*)-1.60 ± 3.28(0.157)
2nd apnea test
 pH7.377 ± 0.065-0.081 ± 0.026(<0.05*)-0.111 ± 0.028(< 0.05*)-0.134 ± 0.034(< 0.05*)-0.149 ± 0.052(< 0.05*)-0.162 ± 0.040(< 0.05*)
 PaCO2 (mmHg)39.7 ± 3.111.58 ± 4.44(< 0.05*)16.76 ± 6.38(< 0.05*)30.29 ± 69.62(< 0.05*)37.72 ± 92.21(< 0.05*)23.03 ± 7.87(< 0.05*)
 PaO2 (mmHg)379.2 ± 186.130.62 ± 120.06(0.324)-44.32 ± 111.41(< 0.05*)16.03 ± 462.97(0.817)-123.06 ± 124.21(< 0.05*)-118.56 ± 208.01(0.088)
 HCO3 (mEq/L)23.1 ± 4.01.39 ± 1.71(< 0.05*)2.08 ± 2.22(< 0.05*)6.71 ± 31.08(0.150)2.18 ± 1.57(< 0.05*)2.03 ± 1.90(< 0.05*)
 SaO2 (%)98.7 ± 1.9-0.28 ± 2.41(0.624)-1.04 ± 4.76(0.157)-2.34 ± 7.10(< 0.05*)-1.26 ± 2.51(< 0.05*)-1.81 ± 4.72(0.211)
 Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg)96 ± 176.87 ± 27.22(0.345)4.55 ± 23.37(0.232)0.00 ± 26.45(1.000)-0.35 ± 26.11(0.938)-1.73 ± 26.68(0.842)
 Pulse rate (bpm)96 ± 17-0.33 ± 8.34(0.879)1.00 ± 6.25(0.324)2.70 ± 8.78(0.050)2.77 ± 6.71(< 0.05*)5.56 ± 6.84(< 0.05*)
 Serum lactate level (mg/dL)13.3 ±8.6-0.80 ± 1.02(< 0.05*)-0.76 ± 1.62(< 0.05*)-0.77 ± 1.82(<0.05*)-1.13 ± 1.43(< 0.05*)-0.83 ± 2.07(0.262)

PaCO2: Partial pressure of carbon dioxide; PaO2: Partial pressure of oxygen; HCO3: Bicarbonate; SaO2: Oxygen saturation.

*P < 0.05.

aValues expressed as mean ± SD.

PaCO2: Partial pressure of carbon dioxide; PaO2: Partial pressure of oxygen; HCO3: Bicarbonate; SaO2: Oxygen saturation. *P < 0.05. aValues expressed as mean ± SD. The serial analysis of PaCO2 for 5 min showed that the increase in PaCO2 was significant over time in the 1st and 2nd apnea tests. PaCO2 exceeded 60 mmHg in 3 min in the 1st apnea test and 4 min in the 2nd apnea test (P < 0.05) (Fig 1).
Fig 1

Increase in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in the apnea test.

(A) At 3 min in the 1st apnea test, the PaCO2 level was above 60 mmHg. (B) At 4 min in the 2nd apnea test, the PaCO2 level was above 60 mmHg. The apnea test positive criterion is PaCO2 > 50 mmHg in South Korea, and PaCO2 > 60 mmHg according to the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines. The dotted line denotes the apnea test positive criterion according to the AAN guidelines.

Increase in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in the apnea test.

(A) At 3 min in the 1st apnea test, the PaCO2 level was above 60 mmHg. (B) At 4 min in the 2nd apnea test, the PaCO2 level was above 60 mmHg. The apnea test positive criterion is PaCO2 > 50 mmHg in South Korea, and PaCO2 > 60 mmHg according to the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines. The dotted line denotes the apnea test positive criterion according to the AAN guidelines. The serial analysis of PaO2 for 5 min showed that in both the 1st and 2nd apnea tests, PaO2 was elevated at 1 min of the test, but decreased thereafter. The change trend was significant in the 1st apnea test (P < 0.05), but not in the 2nd apnea test (P = 0.095) (Fig 2).
Fig 2

Serial change in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2).

(A) Serial changes in PaO2 were significant in the 1st apnea test (P < 0.05). (B) Serial changes in PaO2 were not significant in the 2nd apnea test (P = 0.095).

Serial change in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2).

(A) Serial changes in PaO2 were significant in the 1st apnea test (P < 0.05). (B) Serial changes in PaO2 were not significant in the 2nd apnea test (P = 0.095). The norepinephrine infusion rate was significantly increased between the 1st pre- and post-apnea tests (0.13 ± 0.13 μg/kg/min in the pre-apnea test vs 0.15 ± 0.13 μg/kg/min in the post-apnea test, P < 0.05). Except for this result, there was no significant difference in plateau pressure and norepinephrine infusion rate in the pre- and post-apnea tests (Table 3).
Table 3

Plateau pressure and norepinephrine infusion rate of pre- and post-apnea test.

VariablesValuesP Value
1st apnea test
 Plateau pressure (cmH2O)
  Pre-apnea test20.66±5.240.072
  Post-apnea test22.72±6.16
 Norepinephrine infusion rate (mcg/kg/min)
  Pre-apnea test0.13±0.13< 0.05*
  Post-apnea test0.15±0.13
2nd apnea test
 Plateau pressure (cmH2O)
  Pre-apnea test22.76±6.170.397
  Post-apnea test22.42±5.95
 Norepinephrine infusion rate (mcg/kg/min)
  Pre-apnea test0.09±0.100.120
  Post-apnea tes0.09±0.11

*P < 0.05.

*P < 0.05. Subgroup analysis was also performed. Changes in mean ABP during the apnea test were compared between the normal and abnormal finding groups on chest radiography, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.888) (Fig 3).
Fig 3

Difference in mean arterial blood pressure fluctuation during the apnea test according to chest radiography findings.

The difference in mean arterial blood pressure fluctuations between the two groups was not significant (P = 0.888).

Difference in mean arterial blood pressure fluctuation during the apnea test according to chest radiography findings.

The difference in mean arterial blood pressure fluctuations between the two groups was not significant (P = 0.888).

Discussion

This study analyzed the results of apnea tests conducted by a single institution in South Korea and suggests a rational and unified international guide to the apnea test protocol. According to the results, PaCO2 exceeded 60 mmHg in ABGA within 4 min of starting the apnea test (Figs 1 and 2). This result met the positive criteria for the apnea test suggested by the AAN guidelines. In this study, the increase in PaCO2 over time was significant within 5 min. The short-term apnea test is considered an essential test for brain death determination. Elevation of PaCO2 causes an additional increase in intracranial pressure in patients with potential brain death, as well as complications such as weakening of myocardial contractility, arrhythmias, and respiratory acidosis [16]. According to a review of apnea test complications reported in 2013, hypotension was observed in 111 (18%) of 608 patients who underwent the test [17]. However, maintaining proper blood pressure in the management of brain death is important to prevent ischemic changes in organ(s) for donation and to increase transplant success rates. Therefore, according to the AAN guidelines, the systolic blood pressure should be ≥ 100 mmHg and the mean ABP should be ≥ 60 mmHg before starting the apnea test for brain death determination. In this study, we aimed to maintain a mean ABP of ≥ 65 mmHg before the apnea test and during the entire management period. In fact, the pH from the ABGA during or immediately after the apnea test decreased significantly over time. There were no significant differences in the mean ABP and pulse rate over time. Cardiovascular dysfunction, which is a common complication during the short-term apnea test and lasted for 1 to 5 minutes, was not severe. Therefore, a short apnea test should be considered for safer outcomes. The vasopressor infusion rate was significantly increased between the 1st pre- and post-apnea tests. However, the increase in vasopressor infusion rate in the 1st apnea test was as small as 0.02 μg/kg/min. According to the brain death management protocol of our institution, we checked the mean ABP before the apnea test and, in some cases, preemptively increased the vasopressor injection rate when a borderline mean ABP of approximately 65 mmHg was observed. Therefore, it might have acted as a bias due to the external factors of the study. In addition, it is possible that these results were observed because fluid resuscitation was not sufficiently administered to manage potential brain death patients before the 1st apnea test for brain death determination. In fact, the increase in vasopressor infusion rate was not significant between the 2nd pre- and post-apnea tests. During the apnea test, there was no significant difference in mean ABP fluctuations between the normal and abnormal finding groups on chest radiography; therefore, a short-term apnea test seems safe even in patients with poor lung conditions. MAT is a method for preventing lung damage without affecting hypercapnia by maintaining PEEP even after removing the mechanical ventilator from the patient [11,18]. In the 1st apnea test in this study, PaO2 was significantly changed every minute, but its value was ≥ 90 mmHg (Table 2). Previous studies have confirmed that MAT did not negatively affect apnea test results and allowed a safer completion of the tests [19,20]. MAT was also performed in the present study. Changes in plateau pressure in the pre- and post-apnea tests were checked as a parameter to confirm the presence or absence of lung damage, and no significant changes were observed. Changes in plateau pressure disproved the changes in lung compliance. Although the degree of change was not significant in this study, if the duration of the apnea test is prolonged, lung compliance may worsen. If lung donation is planned, caution is required during the apnea test. If a normal body temperature is maintained and there is no lung disease, only 5 min of apnea can raise PaCO2 from 40 mmHg to 60 mmHg [21]. Nevertheless, a global consensus has not yet been reached. Although the apnea test in South Korea can be considered to be a relatively weak standard compared to the AAN guideline, EEG is mandatory for all brain death determinations, and TCD is also performed in some cases. However, according to the AAN guidelines and a publication by the World Brain Death Project in 2020, EEG was excluded from the mandatory tests because of its high false-positive rate; however, it could be performed as an optional test if the apnea test is unavailable [4,22]. TCD, which is not an essential test for brain death determination, can also be performed as an optional test if the apnea test is infeasible. The sensitivity and specificity of TCD for determining brain death are 90% and 98%, respectively [23]. The additional use of TCD may help shorten the duration of the apnea test in brain death determination. In a previous study, we attempted to determine the optimal duration of the apnea test by performing ABGA every minute during the apnea test [10]. In that study, PaCO2 exceeded 60 mmHg 4 min after the removal of the mechanical ventilator; thus, it can be considered that observing the patient’s apnea pattern for at least 8 min during the apnea test, as presented by the AAN guidelines, is relatively long. Although many studies have reported that complications such as hemodynamic instability and lung damage can be caused by the apnea test, studies on the possible shortening the apnea test duration are insufficient. The reason may be because of the recognition that more stringent criteria should be applied because the apnea test is valuable as an essential test for brain death determination. A study of guidelines for brain death in 80 countries found that detailed guidelines were inconsistent, and in the U.S., there was no internal agreement because of differences in laws even between states [3]. Likewise, the implementation patterns of the apnea tests and positivity criteria have not been standardized worldwide. It will be difficult to achieve a consensus regarding the criteria for brain death determination because of differences in legal systems, culture, and medical standards between countries. Nevertheless, for the safety of patients waiting for brain death determination and for organ preservation after brain death determination, there is a need for a global consensus on the implementation pattern of the apnea test, which is generally considered essential in brain death determination. We suggest an optimal apnea test protocol as follows: 1) after removing the mechanical ventilator from the patient, observe the patient’s apnea patterns for 5 min; 2) after 5 min, perform the short-term ABGA for 1 or 2 min; and 3) when it is confirmed that PaCO2 exceeds 60 mmHg, terminate the apnea test immediately. Because this study was conducted in a single institution, the apnea test was not performed on patients of various races, physiques, etc. This is an important limitation with regarding to generalizing our findings. A global multicenter study is necessary to establish a reasonable apnea test that can be widely performed worldwide.

Conclusions

When brain death was determined, MAT for approximately 5 min resulted in a sufficient increase in PaCO2, meeting the positive criteria for the apnea test, and hemodynamic instability during the test was not significant. This study should be valuable for providing guidelines for a globally relevant optimal duration for the apnea test. 14 Jun 2022
PONE-D-22-01880
Optimal Duration of the Apnea Test for Determining Brain Death: Benefit of the Short-Term Apnea Test
PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hong, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Editor - Thank you for submitting your paper to us for review.  I sent it to three distinguished referees for comment and decision, and then three more of whom two agreed to review; you will see these below.  They thought that the paper has merit, but each have raised some issues to be addressed in a revision.  Please carefully consider the comments below and reply directly to each in a cover letter with appropriate marked and linked changes to the manuscript.  I look forward to seeing the revision, which I will handle personally for timeliness.  Please understand that this is not a guarantee of future publication, as the revised manuscript itself must stand on its own merit. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Steven Eric Wolf, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Overall well written manuscript, addresses a clinically important issue for which a significant amount of controversy exists. Only a few suggestions: 1. Clarify in the result section and Table #1, when describing most common causes of brain death "Traumatic hemorrhage" and "Non traumatic hemorrhage". Please clarify that these are intracranial hemorrhages or describe appropriately 2. Unclear if within 5 minutes all patients had a PaCO2 above 60 mmHg. If that is the case, state that all patients achieve this goal. If not, stare the percent that did. Reviewer #2: A standard time interval for the apnea test has been suggested by national societies but not formalized by the international medical community. This paper is an attempt at starting that process, but because of varying ethical and legal standards, one paper will not complete the process. The scientific and statistical methods used by the authors are sound and are supported by the provided data. The choice of the smallest time interval that is satisfactory from a PaCO2 endpoint for protection of organs for transplantation is understandable but may be hard to achieve consensus. The additional time suggested by the American Academy of Neurology should not incur too great an oxygen debt or acidemia. As shown by this paper, the hemodynamics are usually easily controlled with vasoactive infusions. Some patients will in fact have intact brainstem reflexes that were not appreciated until the apnea test. Before the patient is declared dead, physicians still owe them a fiduciary duty. As suggested in this paper, future work should also focus on standardizing the balance of the protocol of the apnea test. The presented protocol is reasonable if the additional time is added. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: J. Sean Funston, M.D. [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
6 Jul 2022 Responses to reviewers’ comments The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive critique to improve the manuscript. We have made every effort to address the issues raised and to respond to all comments. The revisions are indicated in red font in the revised manuscript. Please, find next a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. We hope that our revisions would meet the reviewers’ expectations. Sincerely, Kyung Sook Hong E-mail: hongks@ewha.ac.kr Reviewer #1 1. Clarify in the result section and Table #1, when describing most common causes of brain death "Traumatic hemorrhage" and "Non traumatic hemorrhage". Please clarify that these are intracranial hemorrhages or describe Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for evaluating our manuscript and for the insightful comment. Please note that both “traumatic hemorrhage” and “non-traumatic hemorrhage” are intracranial hemorrhages. As per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the relevant information to Table 1. 2. Unclear if within 5 minutes all patients had a PaCO2 above 60 mmHg. If that is the case, state that all patients achieve this goal. If not, stare the percent that did. Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind comments to improve our manuscript. To convey accurate information to our readers, we have added relevant contents, as per the reviewer’s comments. Additionally, the positive criterion for apnea test in Korea is a PaCO2 level of ≥50 mmHg. Therefore, PaCO2 levels >60 mmHg were not observed in all patients. As per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the following sentence to the revised manuscript: “In this study, the PaCO2 level exceeded 60 mmHg within 5 min in 76 (88.4%) and 81 (94.2%) cases of the 1st and 2nd apnea tests, respectively.” Reviewer #2 1. A standard time interval for the apnea test has been suggested by national societies but not formalized by the international medical community. This paper is an attempt at starting that process, but because of varying ethical and legal standards, one paper will not complete the process. The scientific and statistical methods used by the authors are sound and are supported by the provided data. The choice of the smallest time interval that is satisfactory from a PaCO2 endpoint for protection of organs for transplantation is understandable but may be hard to achieve consensus. The additional time suggested by the American Academy of Neurology should not incur too great an oxygen debt or acidemia. As shown by this paper, the hemodynamics are usually easily controlled with vasoactive infusions. Some patients will in fact have intact brainstem reflexes that were not appreciated until the apnea test. Before the patient is declared dead, physicians still owe them a fiduciary duty. As suggested in this paper, future work should also focus on standardizing the balance of the protocol of the apnea test. The presented protocol is reasonable if the additional time is added. Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for evaluating our manuscript and for his/her insightful comment. In the conclusion, we have stated that the appropriate duration of the apnea test is approximately 5 min. There are various debates concerning the duration of the apnea test for determination of brain death in Korea. As per the reviewer’s comments, we agree that the determination of brain death must be accompanied by ethical considerations. Therefore, as a further study, we will investigate the status of apnea tests in various institutions of Korea and plan ethical and reasonable suggestions for the positive criteria for apnea tests, including duration. Submitted filename: Response to Editors and Reviewers.docx Click here for additional data file. 13 Jul 2022 Optimal Duration of the Apnea Test for Determining Brain Death: Benefit of the Short-Term Apnea Test PONE-D-22-01880R1 Dear Dr. Hong, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Steven Eric Wolf, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: 19 Jul 2022 PONE-D-22-01880R1 Optimal Duration of the Apnea Test for Determining Brain Death: Benefit of the Short-Term Apnea Test Dear Dr. Hong: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Steven Eric Wolf Academic Editor PLOS ONE
  21 in total

1.  Effects of carbon dioxide on the cardiovascular system.

Authors:  H L PRICE
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1960 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  [Diagnosis of death of the nervous system in comas with respiratory arrest treated by artificial respiration].

Authors:  P WERTHEIMER; M JOUVET; J DESCOTES
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  1959-01-17       Impact factor: 1.228

Review 3.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Transcranial Doppler for Brain Death Confirmation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  J J Chang; G Tsivgoulis; A H Katsanos; M D Malkoff; A V Alexandrov
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 4.  Apnea testing during brain death assessment: a review of clinical practice and published literature.

Authors:  J Brady Scott; Michael A Gentile; Stacey N Bennett; MaryAnn Couture; Neil R MacIntyre
Journal:  Respir Care       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.258

5.  Practice parameters for determining brain death in adults (summary statement). The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 9.910

6.  Pronouncing brain death: Contemporary practice and safety of the apnea test.

Authors:  Eelco F M Wijdicks; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Edward M Manno; John D Atkinson
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 9.910

7.  Apnea testing for brain death in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a possible solution.

Authors:  Sara Hocker; Francis Whalen; Eelco F M Wijdicks
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.210

8.  Proposed safe apnea test using positive end-expiratory pressure valve and short-term blood gas analysis: Observational study.

Authors:  Jin Park; Young-Joo Lee; Kyung Sook Hong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  The diagnosis of brain death.

Authors:  Ajay Kumar Goila; Mridula Pawar
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar

10.  Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria: The World Brain Death Project.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.