Natalie R. Anton

Reduction in Hospital Mortality Over Time in a Hospital Without a Pediatric Medical Emergency Team: Limitations of Before-and-After Study Designs

OBJECTIVE To determine whether hospital mortality has decreased over time in a hospital that has not introduced a pediatric medical emergency team (PMET). DESIGN Retrospective observational study. SETTING Quaternary childrens hospital. PARTICIPANTS All pediatric inpatient separations (defined as any discharge, including death) during 10 fiscal years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We searched our hospital administrative database to determine the number of pediatric inpatient separations and deaths, and we searched the hospital switchboard and pediatric intensive care databases to determine ward code and cardiopulmonary arrest rates. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and logistic regression compared results over time. RESULTS During the periods of the 2 PMET studies showing a reduction in hospital mortality, we found a decrease in hospital mortality: for 1999-2002 vs 2002-2006, 212 deaths among 14 161 patients (1.50%) vs 219 of 26 767 (0.82%), RR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.44-0.69); for 2000-2005 vs 2005-2007, 300 deaths among 29 497 patients (1.02%) vs 98 of 14 005 (0.70%), RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86). During the periods of the 3 PMET studies showing no change in or not examining hospital mortality, we found no significant change in hospital mortality. The annual odds ratio for survival was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.16). There were no changes in ward code and cardiopulmonary arrest rates over time. CONCLUSIONS We found a reduction in hospital mortality over time in a childrens hospital without a PMET. This demonstrates the limitation of before-and-after study designs, and we hypothesize that multiple co-interventions account for the decrease in mortality. Whether a PMET could have reduced mortality further is unknown.

A survey of American neurologists about brain death: understanding the conceptual basis and diagnostic tests for brain death

BackgroundNeurologists often diagnose brain death (BD) and explain BD to families in the intensive care unit. This study was designed to determine whether neurologists agree with the standard concept of death (irreversible loss of integrative unity of the organism) and understand the state of the brain when BD is diagnosed.MethodsA previously validated survey was mailed to a random sample of 500 board-certified neurologists in the United States. Main outcomes were: responses indicating the concept of death that BD fulfills and the empirical state of the brain that would rule out BD.ResultsAfter the second mailing, 218 (44%) surveys were returned. Few (n = 52, 27%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 21%, 34%) responded that BD is death because the organism has lost integrative unity. The most common justification was a higher brain concept (n = 93, 48%; 95% CI, 41%, 55%), suggesting that irreversible loss of consciousness is death. Contrary to the recent Presidents Council on Bioethics, few (n = 22, 12%; 95% CI, 8%, 17%) responded that the irreversible lack of vital work of an organism is a concept of death that the BD criterion may satisfy. Many responded that certain brain functions remaining are not compatible with a diagnosis of BD, including EEG activity, evoked potential activity, and hypothalamic neuroendocrine function. Many also responded that brain blood flow and lack of brainstem destruction are not compatible with a diagnosis of BD.ConclusionsAmerican neurologists do not have a consistent rationale for accepting BD as death, nor a clear understanding of diagnostic tests for BD.

The Apnea Test: Rationale, Confounders, and Criticism

The apnea test is recommended for the diagnosis of brain death. There are several reasons this test should be reconsidered. Confounding factors for performing the test are vaguely and poorly specified. The following 2 confounders are usually present and not considered: potentially reversible high cervical spinal cord injury and central endocrine failure of adrenal and thyroid axes. There are case reports of breathing at a higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide threshold and cases of recovery of breathing after brain death is diagnosed. The test is dangerous for an injured brain in the setting of high intracranial pressure. It can convert viable penumbral brain tissue to irreversibly nonfunctioning tissue via a transient increase in intracranial pressure and no-reflow phenomena. Hyperoxia during the apnea test can further suppress the function of medullary respiratory rhythm centers. Finally, the philosophical rationale for the need to show lack of spontaneous breathing in brain death is lacking.

Survey of pediatricians' opinions on donation after cardiac death: are the donors dead?

OBJECTIVE. There has been debate in the ethics literature as to whether the donation-after-cardiac-death donor is dead after 5 minutes of absent circulation. We set out to determine whether pediatricians consider the donation-after-cardiac-death donor as dead. METHODS. A survey was mailed to all 147 pediatricians who are affiliated with the university teaching childrens hospital. The survey had 4 pediatric patient scenarios in which a decision was made to donate organs after 5 minutes of absent circulation. Background information described the organ shortage, and the debate about the term “irreversibility” applied to death in donation after cardiac death. Descriptive statistics were used, with responses between groups compared by using the χ2 statistic. RESULTS. The response rate was 54% (80 of 147). In each scenario, when given a patient described as dead with absent circulation for 5 minutes, ≤60% of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that the patient is definitely dead, ≤50% responded that the patient is in the state called “dead,” and ≤56% strongly agreed/agreed that the physicians are being truthful when calling the patient dead. On at least 1 of the scenarios, 38 (48%) of 147 responded uncertain, disagree, or strongly disagree that the patient is definitely dead. Although the patients in the 4 scenarios were in the identical physiologic state, with absent circulation for 5 minutes, 12 (15%) of 80 respondents did not consistently consider the patients in the state called “dead” between scenarios. Fewer than 5% of respondents answered strongly agree/agree to allow donation after cardiac death while also answering disagree/strongly disagree that the patient is definitely dead, suggesting little support to abandon the dead-donor rule. CONCLUSIONS. Most pediatrician respondents were not confident that a donation-after-cardiac-death donor was dead. This suggests that additional debate about the concept of irreversibility applied to donation after cardiac death is needed.

A survey to determine the understanding of the conceptual basis and diagnostic tests used for brain death by neurosurgeons in Canada.

OBJECTIVETo determine the understanding of the conceptual basis and diagnostic tests used for brain death (BD) by neurosurgeons in Canada. METHODSBetween February and June 2006, a previously developed survey was mailed to every neurosurgeon in Canada. RESULTSOf 223 surveys mailed, 147 (66%) were returned; of these, 128 (87%) were completed and analyzed. When asked to choose a conceptual reason to explain why BD is equivalent to death, 50 (39%) chose a higher brain concept, 50 (39%) chose a prognosis concept, and 33 (26%) chose a loss of integration of the organism concept. More than half of respondents answered that BD is not compatible with electroencephalographic activity or brainstem evoked potential activity. More than one-third of respondents answered that some cerebral blood flow or a brainstem with minimal microscopic damage was not compatible with BD. Of the 90 respondents who answered that they were comfortable diagnosing BD because the conceptual basis of BD makes it equivalent to death of the patient, in their own words, 14 (16%) used a loss of integration concept, 20 (22%) used a prognosis concept, 25 (28%) used a higher brain concept, and 39 (43%) did not articulate a concept. When asked, “Are brain death and cardiac death the same state (i.e., are both death of the patient)?,” 57 (45%) answered “No.” CONCLUSIONWithin the neurosurgical community, a stand-alone concept of BD does not exist. There is also significant variability in the understanding of the tests that are compatible with the criterion of BD.

The approach to delayed resuscitation in paediatric cardiac arrest: A survey of paediatric intensivists in Canada

AIM To determine how long a period of having had no cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) (delay time) is considered to result in subsequent futile efforts at resuscitation. METHODS In 2007 a survey was mailed to all 77 paediatric intensivists in Canada. Three scenarios of witnessed cardiac arrest were presented: out-of-hospital, in-hospital, and in-hospital with extracorporeal-CPR (E-CPR). Each scenario asked what delay time would make attempts at resuscitation futile for survival to hospital discharge, and for survival to hospital discharge in a better than vegetative state. Comparisons of median [inter-quartile range] used Wilcoxon-signed-rank or Friedman tests with Bonferroni corrections. RESULTS The response rate was 49/77 (64%). The delay time was significantly different between rhythms within all scenarios (p<.001); and was significantly shorter for survival than for better than vegetative survival (p<.006) except when E-CPR was to be used. The delay time was not significantly different between the in-hospital and out-of-hospital scenario with the same rhythms (p>.01). The delay time was significantly shorter in scenarios with asystole versus pulseless electrical activity with (p=.010) or without (p<.001) an arterial line with absent pulsation. In out-of-hospital arrest, the delay time for survival varied from 15 [10-20]min for asystole to 20 [15-20]min for pulseless electrical activity. In in-hospital scenarios, the delay time for survival varied from 10 [10-20]min for asystole, to 15 [10-20]min for most other rhythms. CONCLUSION A delay time of 15 [10-20] (range 5-30)min was considered futile for survival. This has implications for pronouncing death in donation after cardiac death.

Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers

BackgroundHealth care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans.MethodsAfter development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.ResultsResponse rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that “AR rarely produces benefit to humans.” Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation >40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur <21% of the time; and that if translation was to occur <20% of the time, they would be less supportive of AR. There were few differences between pediatricians and nurses/RTs.ConclusionsHCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous.

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

IntroductionPediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.DesignAfter development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.ResultsResponse rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.ConclusionsMost respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.

Predicting early outcomes of liver transplantation in young children: The EARLY study

AIM To determine potentially modifiable predictors of early outcomes after liver transplantation in children of age < 3 years. METHODS This study was a retrospective chart review including all consecutive children of age less than 3-years-old having had a liver transplant done at the Western Canadian referral center from June 2005 to June 2015. Pre-specified potential predictor variables and primary and secondary outcomes were recorded using standard definitions and a case report form. Associations between potential predictor variables and outcomes were determined using univariate and multiple logistic [odds ratio (OR); 95%CI] or linear (effect size, ES; 95%CI) regressions. RESULTS There were 65 children, of mean age 11.9 (SD 7.1) mo and weight 8.5 (2.1) kg, with biliary-atresia in 40 (62%), who had a living related donor [LRD; 29 (45%)], split/reduced [21 (32%)] or whole liver graft [15 (23%)]. Outcomes after liver transplant included: ventilator-days of 12.5 (14.1); pediatric intensive care unit mortality of 5 (8%); re-operation in 33 (51%), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) in 12 (19%), portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in 11 (17%), and any severe complication (HAT, PVT, bile leak, bowel perforation, intraabdominal infection, retransplant, or death) in 32 (49%) patients. Predictors of the prespecified primary outcomes on multiple regression were: (1) HAT: split/reduced (OR 0.06; 0.01, 0.76; P = 0.030) or LRD (OR 0.16; 0.03, 0.95; P = 0.044) vs whole liver graft; and (2) ventilator-days: surgeon (P < 0.05), lowest antithrombin (AT) postoperative day 2-5 (ES -0.24; -0.47, -0.02; P = 0.034), and split/reduced (ES -12.5; -21.8, -3.2; P = 0.009) vs whole-liver graft. Predictors of the pre-specified secondary outcomes on multiple regression were: (1) any thrombosis: LRD (OR 0.10; 0.01, 0.71; P = 0.021) or split/reduced (OR 0.10; 0.01, 0.85; P = 0.034) vs whole liver graft, and lowest AT postoperative day 2-5 (OR 0.93; 0.87, 0.99; P = 0.038); and (2) any severe complication: surgeon (P < 0.05), lowest AT postoperative day 2-5 (OR 0.92; 0.86-0.98; P = 0.016), and split/reduced (OR 0.06; 0.01, 0.78; P = 0.032) vs whole-liver graft. CONCLUSION In young children, whole liver graft and surgeon was associated with more complications, and higher AT postoperative day 2-5 was associated with fewer complications early after liver transplantation.