Variability in criteria for death determination in the intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Variability in practice exists in death determination by circulatory criteria in the context of organ donation. We sought to describe the practices of intensive care health care professionals for death determination by circulatory criteria with and without organ donation. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. We included patients with death determination by circulatory criteria in intensive care units at 16 hospitals in Canada, three in the Czech Republic, and one in the Netherlands. Results were recorded using a checklist for the determination of death questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 583 patients had their death determination checklist reviewed for statistical analysis. The mean (standard deviation) age in years was 64 (15). Three hundred and fourteen (54.0%) patients were from Canada, 230 (39.5%) were from the Czech Republic, and 38 (6.5%) were from the Netherlands. Fifty-two (8.9%) patients proceeded with donation after death determination by circulatory criteria (DCD). The most common diagnostic tests reported for the whole group were absent heart sounds by auscultation (81.8%), flat continuous arterial blood pressure (ABP) tracing (77.0%), and flat electrocardiogram tracing (73.2%). In patients who successfully underwent DCD (N = 52), death was determined most frequently using a flat continuous ABP tracing (94%), absent pulse oximetry (85%), and absent palpable pulse (77%). CONCLUSION: In this study, we have described practices for death determination by circulatory criteria both within and between countries. Though some variability exists, we are reassured that appropriate criteria are almost always used in the context of organ donation. In particular, the use of continuous ABP monitoring in DCD was consistent. It highlights the need for standardization of practice and up to date guidelines, especially within the context of DCD where there is both an ethical and a legal requirement to adhere to the dead donor rule, while minimizing time between death determination and organ procurement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".