Reliability of the Telemedicine Examination in the Neurologic Diagnosis of Death.

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.

[1]  N. Şenoğlu,et al.  Brain Death in Intensive Care Units: Problems, Differences in Methods of Diagnosis, and Donor Care. , 2018, Experimental and clinical transplantation : official journal of the Middle East Society for Organ Transplantation.

[2]  H. Kosiorek,et al.  Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale. , 2017, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[3]  P. Sahota,et al.  Variability in Diagnosing Brain Death at an Academic Medical Center , 2017, Neuroscience journal.

[4]  Nikolas T Nikas,et al.  Determination of Death and the Dead Donor Rule: A Survey of the Current Law on Brain Death. , 2016, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[5]  E. Wijdicks,et al.  Variability of Brain Death Policies in the United States. , 2016, JAMA neurology.

[6]  J. Jeret,et al.  Evidence-based guideline update: Determining brain death in adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology , 2011, Neurology.

[7]  C. Doig,et al.  Variability in hospital-based brain death guidelines in Canada , 2006, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.

[8]  H. Nathan,et al.  Laboratory criteria of brain death. , 1973, Journal of neurosurgery.

[9]  E. B. Wilson Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference , 1927 .