The ethics of donation and transplantation: are definitions of death being distorted for organ transplantation?

A recent commentary defends 1) the concept of 'brain arrest' to explain what brain death is, and 2) the concept that death occurs at 2–5 minutes after absent circulation. I suggest that both these claims are flawed. Brain arrest is said to threaten life, and lead to death by causing a secondary respiratory then cardiac arrest. It is further claimed that ventilation only interrupts this way that brain arrest leads to death. These statements imply that brain arrest is not death itself. Brain death is a devastating state that leads to death when intensive care, which replaces some of the brain's vital functions such as breathing, is withdrawn and circulation stops resulting in irreversible loss of integration of the organism. Circulatory death is said to occur at 2–5 minutes after absent circulation because, in the context of DCD, the intent is to not attempt reversal of the absent circulation. No defense of this weak construal of irreversible loss of circulation is given. This means that paents in identical physiologic states are dead (in the DCD context) or alive (in the resuscitation context); the current state of death (at 2–5 minutes) is contingent on a future event (whether there will be resuscitation) suggesting backward causation; and the commonly used meaning of irreversible as 'not capable of being reversed' is abandoned. The literature supporting the claim that autoresuscitation does not occur in the context of no cardiopulmonary resuscitation is shown to be very limited. Several cases of autoresuscitation are summarized, suggesting that the claim that these cases are not applicable to the current debate may be premature. I suggest that brain dead and DCD donors are not dead; whether organs can be harvested before death from these patients whose prognosis is death should be debated urgently

Expectations for Methodology and Translation of Animal Research: A Survey of Health Care Workers

Background: Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. Methods: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P \u3c .05 considered significant. Results:Response rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that “AR rarely produces benefit to humans.” Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation \u3e40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur Conclusions: HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous

The Ethics of Animal Research: A Survey of Pediatric Health Care Workers

Introduction: Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing. Design: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P \u3c .05 considered significant. Results: Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar. Conclusions: Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate

The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America

Background: To determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of animal research (AR) convincing. Methods: After validation, the survey was sent to samples of public (Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canadian), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; US), a Canadian city festival and children’s hospital), medical students (two second-year classes), and scientists (corresponding authors, and academic pediatricians). We presented questions about common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction. Results: There were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 (59 %) medical student, and 19/319 (6 %) scientist [too few to report] responses. Most public respondents were(65 %), had some College/University education (83 %), and had never done AR (92 %). Most public and medical student respondents considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals are not sentient, or are property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [‘argument from species overlap’], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the ‘kind’ ‘sentient-animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’?]. Medical students were more supportive (80 %) of AR at the end of the survey (p \u3c 0.05). Conclusions: Responses suggest that support for AR may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted

Timing of antibiotics, volume, and vasoactive infusions in children with sepsis admitted to intensive care

Introduction: Early administration of antibiotics for sepsis, and of fluid boluses and vasoactive agents for septic shock, is recommended. Evidence for this in children is limited. Methods: The Alberta Sepsis Network prospectively enrolled eligible children admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) with sepsis from 04/2012-10/2014. Demographics, severity of illness, and outcomes variables were prospectively entered into the ASN database after deferred consent. Timing of interventions were determined by retrospective chart review using a study manual and case-report-form. We aimed to determine the association of intervention timing and outcome in children with sepsis. Univariate (t-test and Fisher's Exact) and multiple linear regression statistics evaluated predictors of outcomes of PICU length of stay (LOS) and ventilation days. Results: Seventy-nine children, age median 60 (IQR 22-133) months, 40 (51 %) female, 39 (49 %) with severe underlying co-morbidity, 44 (56 %) with septic shock, and median PRISM-III 10.5 [IQR 6.0-17.0] were enrolled. Most patients presented in an ED: 36 (46 %) at an outlying hospital ED, and 21 (27 %) at the Children's Hospital ED. Most infections were pneumonia with/without empyema (42, 53 %), meningitis (11, 14 %), or bacteremia (10, 13 %). The time from presentation to acceptable antibiotic administration was a median of 115.0 [IQR 59.0-323.0] minutes; 20 (25 %) of patients received their antibiotics in the first hour from presentation. Independent predictors of PICU LOS were PRISM-III, and severe underlying co-morbidity, but not time to antibiotics. In the septic shock subgroup, the volume of fluid boluses given in the first 2 hours was independently associated with longer PICU LOS (effect size 0.22 days; 95 % CI 0.5, 0.38; per ml/kg). Independent predictors of ventilator days were PRISM-III score and severe underlying co-morbidity. In the septic shock subgroup, volume of fluid boluses in the first 2 hours was independently associated with more ventilator days (effect size 0.09 days; 95 % CI 0.02, 0.15; per ml/kg). Conclusion: Higher volume of early fluid boluses in children with sepsis and septic shock was independently associated with longer PICU LOS and ventilator days. More study on the benefits and harms of fluid bolus therapy in children are needed

Multicentre validation of the bedside paediatric early warning system score: a severity of illness score to detect evolving critical illness in hospitalised children

Abstract Introduction The timely provision of critical care to hospitalised patients at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest is contingent upon identification and referral by frontline providers. Current approaches require improvement. In a single-centre study, we developed the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System (Bedside PEWS) score to identify patients at risk. The objective of this study was to validate the Bedside PEWS score in a large patient population at multiple hospitals. Methods We performed an international, multicentre, case-control study of children admitted to hospital inpatient units with no limitations on care. Case patients had experienced a clinical deterioration event involving either an immediate call to a resuscitation team or urgent admission to a paediatric intensive care unit. Control patients had no events. The scores ranged from 0 to 26 and were assessed in the 24 hours prior to the clinical deterioration event. Score performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUCROC) curve by comparison with the retrospective rating of nurses and the temporal progression of scores in case patients. Results A total of 2,074 patients were evaluated at 4 participating hospitals. The median (interquartile range) maximum Bedside PEWS scores for the 12 hours ending 1 hour before the clinical deterioration event were 8 (5 to 12) in case patients and 2 (1 to 4) in control patients (P < 0.0001). The AUCROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.87 (0.85 to 0.89). In case patients, mean scores were 5.3 at 20 to 24 hours and 8.4 at 0 to 4 hours before the event (P < 0.0001). The AUCROC curve (95% CI) of the retrospective nurse ratings was 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86). This was significantly lower than that of the Bedside PEWS score (P < 0.0001). Conclusions The Bedside PEWS score identified children at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest. Scores were elevated and continued to increase in the 24 hours before the clinical deterioration event. Prospective clinical evaluation is needed to determine whether this score will improve the quality of care and patient outcomes

Impact of withholding early parenteral nutrition completing enteral nutrition in pediatric critically ill patients (PEPaNIC trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The state-of-the-art nutrition used for critically ill children is based essentially on expert opinion and extrapolations from adult studies or on studies in non-critically ill children. In critically ill adults, withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week in ICU improved outcome, as compared with early supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition (EN) with PN. We hypothesized that withholding PN in children early during critical illness reduces the incidence of new infections and accelerates recovery. Methods/Design: The Pediatric Early versus Late Parenteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Unit (PEPaNIC) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in three tertiary referral pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in three countries on two continents. This study compares early versus late initiation of PN when EN fails to reach preset caloric targets in critically ill children. In the early-PN (control, standard of care) group, PN comprising glucose, lipids and amino acids is administered within the first days to reach the caloric target. In the late-PN (intervention) group, PN completing EN is only initiated beyond PICU-day 7, when EN fails. For both study groups, an early EN protocol is applied and micronutrients are administered intravenously. The primary assessor-blinded outcome measures are the incidence of new infections during PICU-stay and the duration of intensive care dependency. The sample size (n = 1,440, 720 per arm) was determined in order to detect a 5% absolute reduction in PICU infections, with at least 80% 1-tailed power (70% 2-tailed) and an alpha error rate of 5%. Based on the actual incidence of new PICU infections in the control group, the required sample size was confirmed at the time of an a priori- planned interim-analysis focusing on the incidence of new infections in the control group only. Discussion: Clinical evidence in favor of early administration of PN in critically ill children is currently lacking, despite potential benefit but also known side effects. This large international RCT will help physicians to gain more insight in the clinical effects of omitting PN during the first week of critical illness in children

The Registry and Follow-Up of Complex Pediatric Therapies Program of Western Canada: A Mechanism for Service, Audit, and Research after Life-Saving Therapies for Young Children

Newly emerging health technologies are being developed to care for children with complex cardiac defects. Neurodevelopmental and childhood school-related outcomes are of great interest to parents of children receiving this care, care providers, and healthcare administrators. Since the 1970s, neonatal follow-up clinics have provided service, audit, and research for preterm infants as care for these at-risk children evolved. We have chosen to present for this issue the mechanism for longitudinal follow-up of survivors that we have developed for western Canada patterned after neonatal follow-up. Our program provides registration for young children receiving complex cardiac surgery, heart transplantation, ventricular assist device support, and extracorporeal life support among others. The program includes multidisciplinary assessments with appropriate neurodevelopmental intervention, active quality improvement evaluations, and outcomes research. Through this mechanism, consistently high (96%) follow-up over two years is maintained