End-Of-Life Care in the Potential Donor after Circulatory Death: A Systematic Review.

Stefanie P Cappucci, Wade S Smith, Richard Schwartzstein, Douglas B White, Susan L Mitchell, Corey R Fehnel
Author Information
  1. Stefanie P Cappucci: Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. ORCID
  2. Wade S Smith: Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  3. Richard Schwartzstein: Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  4. Douglas B White: Department of Critical Care, University of PittsburghSchool of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  5. Susan L Mitchell: Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  6. Corey R Fehnel: Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. ORCID

Abstract

Background: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is becoming increasingly common, yet little is known about the way potential donors receive end-of-life care.
Purpose: The aims of this systematic review are to describe the current practice in end-of-life care for potential donors and identify metrics that are being used to assess discomfort among these patients.
Research design and Study Sample: This review encompasses published literature between June 1, 2000 and June 31, 2020 of end-of-life care received by potential DCD patients. The population of interest was defined as patients eligible for Maastracht classification III donation after circulatory death for a solid organ transplantation. Outcomes examined included: analgesic or palliative protocols, and surrogates of discomfort (eg dyspnea, agitation).
Results: Among 141 unique articles, 27 studies were included for full review. The primary reason for exclusion was lack of protocol description, or lack of reporting on analgesic medications. No primary research studies specifically examined distress in the DCD eligible population. Numerous professional guidelines were identified. Surveys of critical care practitioners identified concerns regarding the impact of symptom management on hastening the dying process in the DCD population as a potential barrier to end-of-life palliative treatment.
Conclusions: There is a paucity of empirical evidence for end-of-life symptom assessment and management for DCD patients. Key evidence gaps identified for DCD include the need for: i) a multidisciplinary structure of treatment teams and preferred environment for DCD, ii) objective tools for monitoring of distress in this patient population, and iii) evidence guiding the administration of analgesic medications following withdrawal of life sustaining therapy.

Keywords

References

  1. Crit Care Med. 2006 Dec;34(12):2952-8 [PMID: 17075366]
  2. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2018 Nov/Dec;33(6):424-434 [PMID: 30395042]
  3. Chest. 2020 Oct;158(4):1456-1463 [PMID: 32360728]
  4. Am J Transplant. 2009 Sep;9(9):2157-65 [PMID: 19681825]
  5. Am J Transplant. 2008 Feb;8(2):432-41 [PMID: 18190657]
  6. Crit Care Med. 2008 Mar;36(3):953-63 [PMID: 18431285]
  7. Am J Transplant. 2009 Sep;9(9):2004-11 [PMID: 19624569]
  8. CMAJ. 2006 Oct 10;175(8):S1 [PMID: 17124739]
  9. J Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;32(3):179-186 [PMID: 26905540]
  10. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 02;1:CD010206 [PMID: 25879099]
  11. N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 14;359(7):669-71 [PMID: 18703467]
  12. Transplant Proc. 2011 Nov;43(9):3441-4 [PMID: 22099816]
  13. N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 14;359(7):709-14 [PMID: 18703473]
  14. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 27;380(26):2497-2505 [PMID: 31242361]
  15. Can J Anaesth. 2015 May;62(5):529-39 [PMID: 25715847]
  16. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Jul;46(4):400-403 [PMID: 29966114]
  17. Clin Transplant. 2014 Jan;28(1):47-51 [PMID: 24261410]
  18. Transplantation. 2000 Oct 27;70(8):1159-66 [PMID: 11063334]
  19. Am J Nurs. 2011 May;111(5):32-8; quiz 39-40 [PMID: 23722379]
  20. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(1):39-41 [PMID: 24422931]
  21. Neurology. 1999 Dec 10;53(9):2215-6 [PMID: 10599821]
  22. Am J Transplant. 2011 Aug;11(8):1719-26 [PMID: 21749645]
  23. Can J Anaesth. 2020 May;67(5):521-531 [PMID: 32100271]
  24. Ann Surg. 2005 Nov;242(5):716-23 [PMID: 16244546]
  25. Neurocrit Care. 2005;3(2):107-10 [PMID: 16174877]
  26. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30 [PMID: 21603045]
  27. Heart Lung. 2017 Jul - Aug;46(4):239-245 [PMID: 28487184]
  28. Crit Care Med. 2015 Sep;43(9):1964-77 [PMID: 26154929]
  29. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Sep;46(5):488-497 [PMID: 30189823]
  30. Ann Neurol. 2012 Feb;71(2):154-6 [PMID: 22334377]
  31. J Palliat Med. 2012 Jan;15(1):16-9 [PMID: 22150063]
  32. BMC Neurol. 2009 Jul 21;9:35 [PMID: 19622138]
  33. Anesth Analg. 2010 May 1;110(5):1428-32 [PMID: 20237048]
  34. J Clin Ethics. 2018 Winter;29(4):313-318 [PMID: 30605441]
  35. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10 [PMID: 17302989]
  36. Crit Care Med. 2001 Sep;29(9):1826-31 [PMID: 11546995]
  37. Trends Neurosci. 2019 Dec;42(12):844-847 [PMID: 31514975]
  38. Am J Transplant. 2004 Sep;4(9):1490-4 [PMID: 15307836]
  39. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2008 May;9(3):261-9 [PMID: 18446110]
  40. Neurocrit Care. 2010 Feb;12(1):111-6 [PMID: 19859833]
  41. Clin Transplant. 2020 Apr;34(4):e13826 [PMID: 32064676]
  42. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul 1;188(1):103-9 [PMID: 23815722]
  43. Br J Anaesth. 2012 Jan;108 Suppl 1:i108-21 [PMID: 22194426]
  44. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Jun;26(3):382-90 [PMID: 23632566]
  45. Intensive Care Med. 2019 Mar;45(3):310-321 [PMID: 30725134]
  46. J Palliat Med. 2014 Mar;17(3):368-71 [PMID: 24410368]
  47. Can J Neurol Sci. 2017 Mar;44(2):139-145 [PMID: 28231862]
  48. Neurology. 2019 Jan 28;92(5):228-232 [PMID: 30602465]
  49. J Palliat Med. 2007 Feb;10(1):118-26 [PMID: 17298260]
  50. JAMA. 2009 May 13;301(18):1902-8 [PMID: 19436017]
  51. J Palliat Care. 2005 Winter;21(4):299-302 [PMID: 16483100]
  52. Crit Care Med. 2012 Sep;40(9):2595-600 [PMID: 22732286]
  53. Ann Surg. 2016 Feb;263(2):211-6 [PMID: 26181480]

Grants

  1. K23 AG066929/NIA NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DCDcareend-of-lifepotentialpatientspopulationcirculatorydeathreviewdonationanalgesicpalliativeidentifiedevidencedonorsdiscomfortJuneeligibleorganexaminedstudiesprimarylackmedicationsdistresssymptommanagementtreatmentBackground:DonationbecomingincreasinglycommonyetlittleknownwayreceivePurpose:aimssystematicdescribecurrentpracticeidentifymetricsusedassessamongResearchdesignStudySample:encompassespublishedliterature12000312020receivedinterestdefinedMaastrachtclassificationIIIsolidtransplantationOutcomesincluded:protocolssurrogatesegdyspneaagitationResults:Among141uniquearticles27includedfullreasonexclusionprotocoldescriptionreportingresearchspecificallyNumerousprofessionalguidelinesSurveyscriticalpractitionersconcernsregardingimpacthasteningdyingprocessbarrierConclusions:paucityempiricalassessmentKeygapsincludeneedfor:multidisciplinarystructureteamspreferredenvironmentiiobjectivetoolsmonitoringpatientiiiguidingadministrationfollowingwithdrawallifesustainingtherapyEnd-Of-LifeCarePotentialDonorCirculatoryDeath:SystematicReviewneurocritical

Similar Articles

Cited By