Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:01:54.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aligning the Criterion and Tests for Brain Death

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2019

JAMES L. BERNAT  and
ANNE L. DALLE AVE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Disturbing cases continue to be published of patients declared brain dead who later were found to have a few intact brain functions. We address the reasons for the mismatch between the whole-brain criterion and brain death tests, and suggest solutions. Many of the cases result from diagnostic errors in brain death determination. Others probably result from a tiny amount of residual blood flow to the brain despite intracranial circulatory arrest. Strategies to lessen the mismatch include improving brain death determination training for physicians, mandating a test showing complete intracranial circulatory arrest, or revising the whole-brain criterion.

Keywords

brain deathwhole brain criterionbrain death testsbrain death determination
Type
Article
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2019 , pp. 635 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Wahlster, S, Wijdicks, EF, Patel, PV, Greer, DM, Hemphill, JC 3rd, Carone, M, et al. Brain death declaration: Practices and perceptions worldwide. Neurology 2015;84:1870–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Notably, several authors have discussed the issue of criterion-test mismatch. See Youngner, SJ, Bartlett, ET. Human death and high technology: The failure of the whole-brain formulations. Annals of Internal Medicine 1983;99:252–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Halevy, A, Brody, B. Brain death: Reconciling definitions, criteria, and tests. Annals of Internal Medicine 1993;119:519–25;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Veatch, RM. The impending collapse of the whole-brain definition of death. Hastings Center Report 1993;23(4):18–24;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Truog, RD, Miller, FG. Changing the conversation about brain death. American Journal of Bioethics 2014;14(8):9–14; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Nair-Collins, M. Taking science seriously in the debate on death and organ transplantation. Hastings Center Report 2015;45(6):38–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. This analysis is summarized in Bernat, JL. Whither brain death? American Journal of Bioethics 2014;14(8):3–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. The principal exception to using the whole-brain criterion is the United Kingdom, which uses the brain stem criterion of death. In practice, the overwhelming majority of cases fulfilling the brain stem criterion also fulfill the whole-brain criterion, but there are rare cases of primary brain stem damage that fulfill the brain stem criterion but not the whole-brain criterion. See Bernat, JL. How much of the brain must die in brain death? Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;3:21–6.Google Scholar

5. The Unified Determination of Death Act provides: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” See President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death. Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1981, at 55–84.Google Scholar

6. Pope, TM. Legal briefing: Brain death and total brain failure. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2014;25(3):245–57.Google ScholarPubMed

7. Appendix F of President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death. Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1981, at 159–66;Google Scholar Wijdicks, EF, Varelas, PN, Gronseth, GS, Greer, DM. American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: Determining brain death in adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2010;74:1911–8; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Nakagawa, TA, Ashwal, S, Mathur, M, Mysore, M, and the Committee for Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children. Guidelines for the determination of brain death in infants and children: An update of the 1987 Task Force recommendations. Critical Care Medicine 2011;39:2139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Dalle Ave, AL, Bernat, JL. Inconsistencies between the criterion and tests for brain death. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2018:1–9 (epub before print.) PMID 29929410.Google ScholarPubMed The authors grouped the cases into several categories: (1) obvious clinical brain functions that were disregarded in the test batteries; (2) cases in which brain functions may have been present, but were not detectable at the bedside; and (3) cases in which brain functions may have been absent transitorily because of confounding factors.

9. Arita, K, Uozumi, T, Oki, S, Kurisu, K, Ohtani, M, Mikami, T. The function of the hypothalamo-pituitary axis in brain dead patients. Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien) 1993;123(1-2):64–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. For a recent debate on the correct understanding of the McMath case, see: Lewis, A. Reconciling the case of Jahi McMath. Neurocritical Care 2018;29(1):20–2; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Shewmon, DA. Truly reconciling the case of Jahi McMath. Neurocritical Care 2018;29(2):165–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. For mimics of brain death, see Busl, KM, Greer, DM. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of brain death. Neurocritical Care 2009;11:276–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Webb, AC, Samuels, OB. Reversible brain death after cardiopulmonary arrest and induced hypothermia. Critical Care Medicine 2011;39:1538–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Bernat, JL, Brust, JCM. Strategies to produce uniformity in brain death determination. Neurology 2019;92:401-2.Google Scholar

14. Coimbra, CG. Implications of ischemic penumbra for the diagnosis of brain death. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 1999;32:1479–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. The preferential survival of brain stem neurons during diffuse hypoxic-ischemic injury is also the mechanism by which the vegetative state is produced during prolonged cardiopulmonary arrest in cases not severe enough to produce brain death. See Bernat, JL. Chronic disorders of consciousness. Lancet 2006;367:1181–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. See texts referenced in note 7.

17. See note 13, Bernat, Brust 2019.

18. See texts referenced in note 2.

19. We discussed these ideas briefly in the article cited in note 8.

20. The relevant confirmatory tests are neuroimaging studies measuring intracranial blood flow, such as contrast angiography, intravenous radionuclide angiography, CT angiography SPECT, and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. See Robbins, NM, Bernat, JL. Practice current: When do you order ancillary tests to determine brain death? Neurology Clinical Practice 2018;8:266–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Huang, AP, Bernat, JL. The organism as a whole in an analysis of death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2019 (in press).Google Scholar

22. From nearly the beginning of the brain death era, investigators have noted the presence of isolated EEG findings and certain movements in brain dead patients. See Grigg, MM, Kelly, MA, Celesia, GG, Ghobrial, MW, Ross, ER. Electroencephalographic activity after brain death. Archives of Neurology 1987;44:948–54; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Saposnik, G, Basile, VS, Young, GB. Movements in brain death: A systematic review. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 2009;36(2):154–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed