Coding the Dead: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Organ Preservation.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-28 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2023.2180106
Colin Eversmann, Ayush Shah, Christos Lazaridis, Lainie F Ross
{"title":"Coding the Dead: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Organ Preservation.","authors":"Colin Eversmann, Ayush Shah, Christos Lazaridis, Lainie F Ross","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2023.2180106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is lack of consensus in the bioethics literature regarding the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for organ-preserving purposes. In this study, we assessed the perspectives of clinicians in critical care settings to better inform donor management policy and practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online anonymous survey of members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine that presented various scenarios about CPR for organ preservation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The email was sent to 10,340 members. It was opened by 5,416 (52%) of members and 405 members (4%) completed the survey with few missing data. A majority of respondents (81%) answered that donation status should not influence whether CPR is performed on an imminently dying patient. There was very strong agreement (>85%) that 1) CPR should be performed on a registered donor who experiences a cardiac arrest with an unknown code status before death by neurological criteria (DNC) and 2) CPR should be performed if the patient is not a registered donor and experiences cardiac arrest but the surrogate/power of attorney (POA) has not yet been approached regarding code status and donation. When a registered donor with a DNR order experiences cardiac arrest before DNC, 98% of respondents would not perform CPR. However, <b>after</b> DNC, respondents were evenly divided on whether they would (49%) or would not (51%) perform CPR on a registered donor with an undocumented code status. When asked whether consent should be required for CPR for organ-preserving purposes, 39% answered \"Yes\" when a patient arrests before DNC and 48% answered \"Yes\" when a patient arrests after DNC (P = 0.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of respondents did not consider donor status relevant to CPR decisions before DNC, and virtually all would respect a DNR order in a registered donor before DNC. Respondents were divided about the need for an affirmative consent for CPR for organ-preserving purposes both before and after DNC.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"14 3","pages":"167-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2023.2180106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: There is lack of consensus in the bioethics literature regarding the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for organ-preserving purposes. In this study, we assessed the perspectives of clinicians in critical care settings to better inform donor management policy and practice.

Methods: An online anonymous survey of members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine that presented various scenarios about CPR for organ preservation.

Results: The email was sent to 10,340 members. It was opened by 5,416 (52%) of members and 405 members (4%) completed the survey with few missing data. A majority of respondents (81%) answered that donation status should not influence whether CPR is performed on an imminently dying patient. There was very strong agreement (>85%) that 1) CPR should be performed on a registered donor who experiences a cardiac arrest with an unknown code status before death by neurological criteria (DNC) and 2) CPR should be performed if the patient is not a registered donor and experiences cardiac arrest but the surrogate/power of attorney (POA) has not yet been approached regarding code status and donation. When a registered donor with a DNR order experiences cardiac arrest before DNC, 98% of respondents would not perform CPR. However, after DNC, respondents were evenly divided on whether they would (49%) or would not (51%) perform CPR on a registered donor with an undocumented code status. When asked whether consent should be required for CPR for organ-preserving purposes, 39% answered "Yes" when a patient arrests before DNC and 48% answered "Yes" when a patient arrests after DNC (P = 0.2).

Conclusions: The majority of respondents did not consider donor status relevant to CPR decisions before DNC, and virtually all would respect a DNR order in a registered donor before DNC. Respondents were divided about the need for an affirmative consent for CPR for organ-preserving purposes both before and after DNC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为死者编码:用于器官保存的心肺复苏。
背景:在生物伦理学文献中,对于使用心肺复苏术(CPR)来保存器官的目的缺乏共识。在这项研究中,我们评估了临床医生在重症监护环境中的观点,以更好地为捐赠者管理政策和实践提供信息。方法:一项针对重症医学会成员的在线匿名调查,介绍了CPR用于器官保存的各种场景。结果:该电子邮件已发送给10340名会员。5416名成员(52%)打开了它,405名成员(4%)完成了调查,几乎没有遗漏数据。大多数受访者(81%)回答说,捐赠状态不应影响是否对即将死亡的患者进行心肺复苏术。非常一致(>85%)的意见是:1)应根据神经系统标准(DNC)对死亡前经历心脏骤停且代码状态未知的注册捐赠者进行心肺复苏术;2)如果患者不是注册捐赠者并经历心脏骤停,但尚未就代码状态和捐赠物当有DNR订单的注册捐赠者在DNC前经历心脏骤停时,98%的受访者不会进行心肺复苏。然而,在DNC之后,受访者在是否会(49%)或不会(51%)对具有无证件代码状态的注册捐赠者进行心肺复苏术的问题上意见相左。当被问及是否需要同意进行心肺复苏以保护器官时,39%的患者在DNC前停跳时回答“是”,48%的患者在DN后停跳时答“是”(P = 0.2)。结论:大多数受访者在DNC之前没有考虑与CPR决定相关的捐赠者身份,几乎所有人都会尊重DNC之前注册捐赠者的DNR命令。在DNC前后,受访者对出于器官保存目的进行心肺复苏是否需要肯定同意存在分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1