Withdrawal of Life-supporting Treatment in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury | Traumatic Brain Injury | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Williamson  TL, Abdelgabir  J, Barks  MC, Zakare  R, Ubel  PA.  The impact of prognostic estimates on surgical decision making in the setting of severe traumatic brain injury: a survey of neurosurgeons.  Published online March 2, 2020.  PLOS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228947Google Scholar
2.
Côte  N, Turgeon  AF, Lauzier  F,  et al.  Factors associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a multicenter cohort study.   Neurocrit Care. 2013;18(1):154-160. doi:10.1007/s12028-012-9787-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Turgeon  AF, Lauzier  F, Burns  KEA,  et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.  Determination of neurologic prognosis and clinical decision making in adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a survey of Canadian intensivists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists.   Crit Care Med. 2013;41(4):1086-1093. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318275d046 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Anderson  WGAR, Arnold  RM, Angus  DC, Bryce  CL.  Posttraumatic stress and complicated grief in family members of patients in the intensive care unit.   J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(11):1871-1876. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0770-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Finkelstein  E, Corso  PS, Miller  TR.  The Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States. Oxford University Press; 2006. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179484.001.0001
6.
National Scientific Advisory Committee. Identifying priorities for research and capacity development in injury as a multi-institute strategic initiative within the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: listening for direction on injury: final report 2004. Accessed September 1, 2019. https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/6/334
7.
Rocker  GM, Cook  DJ, Shemie  SD.  Brief review: practice variation in end of life care in the ICU: implications for patients with severe brain injury.   Can J Anaesth. 2006;53(8):814-819. doi:10.1007/BF03022799 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Turgeon  AF, Lauzier  F, Simard  JF,  et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.  Mortality associated with withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a Canadian multicentre cohort study.   CMAJ. 2011;183(14):1581-1588. doi:10.1503/cmaj.101786 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Rubin  M, Bonomo  J, Hemphill  JC  III.  Intersection of prognosis and palliation in neurocritical care.   Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23(2):134-139. doi:10.1097/MCC.0000000000000396 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Livingston  DH, Tripp  T, Biggs  C, Lavery  RF.  A fate worse than death? Long-term outcome of trauma patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit.   J Trauma. 2009;67(2):341-348. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a5cc34 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Honeybul  S, Gillett  GR, Ho  KM.  Uncertainty, conflict and consent: revisiting the futility debate in neurotrauma.   Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(7):1251-1257. doi:10.1007/s00701-016-2818-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Carney  N, Totten  AM.  Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. 4th ed. Neurosurg; 2016.
13.
Feeney  JM, Santone  E, DiFiori  M, Kis  L, Jayaraman  V, Montgomery  SC.  Compared to warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants are associated with lower mortality in patients with blunt traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: A TQIP study.   J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81(5):843-848. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001245 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
McCredie  VA, Alali  AS, Xiong  W,  et al.  Timing of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in severe traumatic brain injury: Impact on overall mortality.   J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(3):484-491. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000922 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Murray  GD, Butcher  I, McHugh  GS,  et al.  Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study.   J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(2):329-337. doi:10.1089/neu.2006.0035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Steyerberg  EW, Mushkudiani  N, Perel  P,  et al.  Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics.   PLoS Med. 2008;5(8):e165. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165 PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Gorji  N, Zador  Z, Poon  S.  A configurational analysis of risk patterns for predicting the outcome after traumatic brain injury.   AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;2017:780-789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Perel  P, Arango  M, Clayton  T,  et al; MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators.  Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients.   BMJ. 2008;336(7641):425-429. doi:10.1136/bmj.39461.643438.25 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Quinn  T, Moskowitz  J, Khan  MW,  et al.  What families need and physicians deliver: contrasting communication preferences between surrogate decision-makers and physicians during outcome prognostication in critically ill TBI patients.   Neurocrit Care. 2017;27(2):154-162. doi:10.1007/s12028-017-0427-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Turgeon  AF, Dorrance  K, Archambault  P,  et al; Canadian Traumatic Brain Injury Research Consortium and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.  Factors influencing decisions by critical care physicians to withdraw life-sustaining treatments in critically ill adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury.   CMAJ. 2019;191(24):E652-E663. doi:10.1503/cmaj.190154 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
White  DB, Ernecoff  N, Buddadhumaruk  P,  et al.  Prevalence of and factors related to discordance about prognosis between physicians and surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients.   JAMA. 2016;315(19):2086-2094. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5351 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Diringer  MN, Edwards  DF, Aiyagari  V, Hollingsworth  H.  Factors associated with withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in a neurology/neurosurgery intensive care unit.   Crit Care Med. 2001;29(9):1792-1797. doi:10.1097/00003246-200109000-00023 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Rodrigo  C, Amarasuriya  M, Wickramasinghe  S, Constantine  GR.  Therapeutic momentum: a concept opposite to therapeutic inertia.   Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67(1):97-98. doi:10.1111/ijcp.12043 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Fiscella  K, Sanders  MR.  Racial and ethnic disparities in the quality of health care.   Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37(1):375-394. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021439 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Orlovic  M, Smith  K, Mossialos  E.  Racial and ethnic differences in end-of-life care in the United States: evidence from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS).   SSM Popul Health. 2018;7:100331-100331. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.100331 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Zeitoun  N.  New Medicare rule will reimburse physicians for advance care planning.   Hospitalist. 2015;2015(11):1. Accessed September 1, 2019. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/122030/health-policy/new-medicare-rule-will-reimburse-physicians-advance-careGoogle Scholar
27.
Souter  MJ, Blissitt  PA, Blosser  S,  et al.  Recommendations for the critical care management of devastating brain injury: prognostication, psychosocial, and ethical management: a position statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.   Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):4-13. doi:10.1007/s12028-015-0137-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    June 17, 2020

    Withdrawal of Life-supporting Treatment in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Duke University Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Durham, North Carolina
    • 2Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
    • 3Duke University Medical Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, Durham, North Carolina
    • 4Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Durham, North Carolina
    • 5The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
    • 6Duke University Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, Durham, North Carolina
    JAMA Surg. 2020;155(8):723-731. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1790
    Key Points

    Question  Which factors are associated with the decision to withdraw life-supporting treatment (LST) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury in the US?

    Findings  In this large, multicenter cohort study, race, geographic region, and payment status were significantly associated with the decision to withdraw LST. Associated clinical factors included older age, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, functionally dependent health status, hematoma, dementia, and disseminated cancer.

    Meaning  In addition to clinical factors, there is evidence for socioeconomic variation in the decision to withdraw LST in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

    Abstract

    Importance  There are limited data on which factors affect the critical and complex decision to withdraw life-supporting treatment (LST) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).

    Objective  To determine demographic and clinical factors associated with the decision to withdraw LST in patients with sTBI.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective analysis of inpatient data from more than 825 trauma centers across the US in theAmerican College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from January 2013 to December 2015 included adult patients with sTBI and documentation of a decision regarding withdrawal of LST (WLST). Data analysis was conducted in September 2019.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Factors associated with WLST in sTBI.

    Results  A total of 37931 patients (9817 women [25.9%]) were included in the multivariable analysis; 7864 (20.7%) had WLST. Black patients (4806 [13.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.72; P < .001) and patients of other race (4798 [13.2%]; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001) were less likely than white patients (26 864 [73.7%]) to have WLST. Patients from hospitals in the Midwest (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .002) or Northeast (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.34; P < .001) were more likely to have WLST than patients from hospitals in the South. Patients with Medicare (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.43-1.69; P < .001) and self-pay patients (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.25-1.47; P < .001) were more likely to have WLST than patients with private insurance. Older patients and those with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores, higher Injury Severity Scores, or craniotomy were generally more likely to have WLST. Withdrawal of LST was more likely for patients with functionally dependent health status (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.08-1.58; P = .01), hematoma (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12-1.27; P < .001), dementia (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.08-1.53; P = .004), and disseminated cancer (OR, 2.82; 95% CI, 2.07-3.82; P < .001) than for patients without these conditions.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Withdrawal of LST is common in sTBI and socioeconomic factors are associated with the decision to withdraw LST. These results highlight the many factors that contribute to decision-making in sTBI and demonstrate that in a complex and variable disease process, variation based on race, payment, and region presents as a potential challenge.

    ×