MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386003154 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069536

Is the process of withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in the intensive care unit different for deceased organ donors compared with other dying patients? A secondary analysis of prospectively collected data

2023· article· en· W4386003154 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jason Shahin, Nathan Scales, Fatema Tuj Johara, Melanie L. Hogue, Laura Hornby, Sam D. Shemie, Meic H. Schmidt, Petr Waldauf, Tineke Wind, Walther van Mook, Sonny Dhanani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Blood ServicesAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioMontreal Children's HospitalOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Blood ServicesUniverzita Karlova v PrazeCanadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitSecondary careEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineGerontologyFamily medicinePrimary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether observable differences exist between patterns of withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients eligible for donation after circulatory death (DCD) in whom donation was attempted compared with those patients in whom no donation attempts were made. SETTING: Adult intensive care units from 20 centres in Canada, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of quantitative data collected as part of a large, prospective, cohort study (the Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy study). PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years of age who died after a controlled WLSM in an intensive care unit. Patients were classified as not DCD eligible, DCD eligible with DCD attempted or DCD eligible but DCD was not attempted. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The process of WLSM (timing and type and, if applicable, dosages of measures withdrawn, dosages of analgesics/sedatives) was compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 635 patients analysed, 85% had either cardiovascular support stopped or were extubated immediately on WLSM. Of the DCD eligible patients, more were immediately extubated at the initiation of WLSM when DCD was attempted compared with when DCD was not attempted (95% vs 61%, p<0.0001). Initiation of WLSM with the immediate cessation of cardiovascular measures or early extubation was associated with earlier time to death, even after adjusting for confounders (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.23, at 30 min). Other than in a few patients who received propofol, analgesic and sedative dosing after WLSM between DCD attempted and DCD eligible but not attempted patients was not significantly different. All patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in whom DCD is attempted may receive a different process of WLSM. This highlights the need for a standardised and transparent process for end-of-life care across the spectrum of critically ill patients and potential organ donors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207