Predictors/OutcomesDetermination of death after circulatory arrest by intensive care physicians: A survey of current practice in the Netherlands
Introduction
The use of organs from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors is increasing in many countries. Donation after circulatory death, also known as donation after cardiac death or non–heart-beating donation, has become an established strategy to offer donation to more intensive care patients, expand the donor pool, and reduce the waiting list for transplantation [1]. Most DCD donors are patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who die after withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (controlled DCD [cDCD]) [2]. Organs from cDCD donors are subjected to a period of warm ischemia, the period between the cessation of circulation and the initiation of preservation measures, which adversely affects transplant outcome [3]. To minimize the warm ischemic damage, it is paramount to initiate organ preservation as soon as possible after the patient's death. A fundamental principle within the context of organ donation is the “dead-donor rule”: organs cannot be removed until death has been declared [4]. The determination of circulatory death and a subsequent obligatory no-touch period to ensure the permanent death are an essential part of cDCD [5]. However, in contrast to the criteria for brain death, which are generally well defined and accepted with clear protocols, clearly defined criteria for determination of circulatory death are so far not available [6].
A review of contemporary international guidelines shows the currently existing variability in the determination of death after cardiac arrest [7], resulting in an ongoing discussion about the determination of cardiac death within the context of organ donation [8], [9], [10], [11]. The main issues identified relate to the irreversibility of the loss of cardiocirculatory function, the exact moment of death, and the concern about the possibility of spontaneous resumption of a cardiac rhythm after asystole with circulatory output, termed autoresuscitation (AR) [12], [13], [14].
The primary objective of this study was to describe the current practices of determination of death after cardiac arrest in adults in the Netherlands by intensive care physicians. Secondary objectives included to identify the policies and guidelines which are available to physicians, to determine the perceived need for standardization of practice, and to determine the reported occurrence of AR.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
All intensive care physicians caring for adult patients in the Netherlands were approached by mail using information from the Dutch Intensive Care Society, combined with information retrieved from Web sites of the hospitals. The medical manager of each department was contacted by telephone or by e-mail, to explain the study and ask permission to send the questionnaire to all staff intensivists.
To assess determination of death practice, the Determination of Cardiac Death Practices in Intensive
Demographics
All approached medical managers agreed to sending the questionnaire to their staff intensivists; 582 staff ICU physicians were approached.
The response rate was 55% (311/568); 14 were excluded (not practicing as intensivist, retired, or duplicated). The most frequent speciality training of participating intensivists included internal medicine and anesthesia. Most respondents (72%) were working in a university hospital, followed by a large teaching hospital (41%) and a district hospital (32%).
Discussion
This large national survey among all Dutch intensive care physicians caring for adult patients provides an in-depth insight in the practice of determination of death after circulatory arrest. The response rate was 55% representing the opinions of 311 intensive care physicians, from different backgrounds and different ICUs in the Netherlands, resulting in a reliable representation of common practice in the Netherlands.
The reported practice showed variability. No diagnostic test or procedure for
Conclusion
This large nationwide survey about the determination of death after cardiac arrest by intensive care physicians in the Netherlands shows an extensive variability in the practice of determining death after circulatory arrest. There is a need for guidelines and standardization of the determination of circulatory death, especially if organ donation follows death. The phenomenon of AR is reported, not only after unsuccessful resuscitation but also after withdrawal of life support, which requires
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Authors' contribution
JW, WvM, EvH, and SD: conception and design; JW: acquisition of data; JW, WvM, and EvH: data analysis; JW: first draft of manuscript; JW, WvM, SD, and EvH contributed to the interpretation of the data, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.
References (27)
- et al.
Prolonged warm ischemia affects long-term prognosis of kidney transplant allografts from non–heart-beating donors
Transplant Proc
(1998) - et al.
International perspective on the diagnosis of death
Br J Anaesth
(2012) - et al.
The potential pool of non–heart-beating kidney donors
Clin Transpl
(1997) - et al.
Categories of non–heart-beating donors
Transplant Proc
(1995) The dead donor rule. The Hastings Center report
(1999)- et al.
The circulatory-respiratory determination of death in organ donation
Crit Care Med
(2010) - et al.
Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Neurology
(2010) - et al.
Variability in the determination of death after cardiac arrest: a review of guidelines and statements
J Intensive Care Med
(2012) The ethics of donation and transplantation: are definitions of death being distorted for organ transplantation?
Philos Ethics Humanit Med
(2007)- et al.
Organ donation after cardiac death: are we willing to abandon the dead-donor rule?
Pediatr Crit Care Med
(2007)
Organ procurement after cardiocirculatory death: a critical analysis
J Intensive Care Med
Clarifying the paradigm for the ethics of donation and transplantation: Was ‘dead’ really so clear before organ donation?
Philos Ethics Humanit Med
Truthfulness in transplantation: non–heart-beating organ donation
Philos Ethics Humanit Med
Cited by (17)
Autoresuscitation and clinical authority in death determination using circulatory criteria
2022, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Clinically reported and physiologically confirmed autoresuscitation events are rare in clinical practice, occurring in just 1% of a recent prospective study of over 600 patients (Dhanani et al., 2021). Nevertheless, surveys of clinicians who work with critically ill patients in intensive care units indicate a much higher rate of observation, with over a third reporting they had either personally witnessed or heard of an autoresuscitation case (Dhanani et al., 2012b; Wind et al., 2015). For patients who die following the planned removal of life sustaining therapies, death is an expected outcome.
The Last Beat: Contemporary Ethical Controversies Surrounding Determination of Cardiopulmonary Death
2022, ChestCitation Excerpt :Over the last 40 years, >50 cases have been identified.17 Surveys have found that 25% to 37% of intensive care physicians18,19 and 45% of prehospital emergency physicians20 had encountered autoresuscitation personally, which suggests that published case reports grossly underestimate its prevalence. What explains autoresuscitation?
Public opinion and legislations related to brain death, circulatory death and organ donation
2020, Journal of the Neurological SciencesCitation Excerpt :Legislation concerning brain death appears nevertheless more developed than that on circulatory death. Consistent with former research [28–30], our literature review and sampling of circulatory death guidelines revealed large variations across the included countries in terms of eligibility, techniques and length of non-interventions periods. Even at the national level, e.g. within the US, DCD practice can differ considerably across regional states and hospitals [31,32].
Delayed return of spontaneous circulation (the Lazarus phenomenon) after cessation of out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation
2017, ResuscitationCitation Excerpt :The authors emphasized the need to address the Lazarus phenomenon during medical education. In a separate study among Dutch intensive care physicians, 37% of 311 respondents reported having witnessed autoresuscitation either after unsuccessful CPR or the withdrawal of care [16]. The physiological mechanisms behind the Lazarus phenomenon remain unknown.
Deceased organ and tissue donation after medical assistance in dying and other conscious and competent donors: Guidance for policy
2019, CMAJCitation Excerpt :Medical assistance in dying by vital organ donation is not an acceptable mechanism of MAiD.12 Because the usual invasive monitoring is not present during MAiD, a noninvasive approach may be needed to confirm circulatory death.13 The organ procurement process cannot be implicated in the death of the patient in any way.