This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To determine whether telemedicine technology can be used to reliably determine the neurologic diagnosis of death (NDD) in patients with catastrophic brain injury (CBI).
Methods We included a convenience sample of patients with CBI at a single academic medical center from November 2016 through June 2018. We simultaneously performed brain death evaluation at the bedside and remotely via telemedicine. Remote examiners were neurointensivists who were experienced and knowledgeable in the NDD. In addition to standard clinical examination, we used quantitative pupillometry to evaluate pupil size and reactivity. We determined the proportion of agreement for each NDD examination element and the overall diagnosis of brain death between bedside and remote examiners.
Results Twenty-nine patients with mean age 46 ± 18 years underwent 30 paired NDD examinations. Twenty-eight (97%) patients met the NDD criteria and were pronounced dead. One patient did not meet the NDD criteria and died after withdrawal of life support. With the exception of qualitative assessment of pupillary reactivity, we observed excellent agreement (97%–100% across NDD examination elements) between bedside and remote examiners and 97% agreement on the overall diagnosis of brain death. Unlike qualitative pupillary assessment, quantitative pupillometry was consistently interpretable by remote examiners.
Conclusions Our results suggest that remote telemedicine technology can be used to verify the findings of bedside examiners performing NDD examinations when a pupillometer is used to assess pupillary reactivity. When performed by neurocritical care experts, the telemedicine NDD examination has potential to facilitate timely and accurate certification of brain death in patients with CBI.
Classification of Evidence This study provides Class IV evidence on the concordance of neurologic diagnosis of death by telemedicine and bedside examiners.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
- Received September 17, 2019.
- Accepted November 19, 2019.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
- Reader Response: Reliability of the Telemedicine Examination in the Neurologic Diagnosis of Death
- Author response: Reliability of the telemedicine examination in the neurologic diagnosis of death
- Reader response: Reliability of the telemedicine examination in the neurologic diagnosis of death
NOTE: All contributors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.cp.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.