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
Background and Objectives There is a paucity of data on the frequency and prognosis of infratentorial brain injury among patients suspected of death by neurologic criteria (DNC), which likely contributes to scientific uncertainty regarding the role of isolated brainstem death in DNC determination. Our aim was to synthesize the prevalence, characteristics, and evolution of infratentorial brain injury, including isolated brainstem death, among patients suspected of DNC.
Methods We conducted a systematic review by searching Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL Complete, and the gray literature from inception to March 26, 2021. We selected cohort and cross-sectional studies, case reports, and case series that included patients suspected of DNC. Two study investigators independently performed study selection, data collection, and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcomes were the respective prevalence of infratentorial brain injury and isolated brainstem death, which we meta-analyzed using mixed-effects Bayesian hierarchical models with diffuse priors. Our secondary outcomes were the characteristics and evolution of patients with infratentorial brain injury and isolated brainstem death.
Results Twenty-one studies met the selection criteria, most of which were of moderate to high risk of bias. Among patients suspected of DNC, the prevalence of infratentorial brain injury ranged from 2% to 16% (n = 3,602, mean prevalence: 6.3%, 95% highest density interval [2.4%–14.2%]), whereas the prevalence of isolated brainstem death ranged from 1% to 4% (n = 3,692, mean prevalence: 1.5%, 95% highest density interval [0.5%–3.9%]). A total of 38 isolated brainstem death cases with data on clinical characteristics and/or evolution were included. All had infratentorial strokes. Twenty patients had EEG background activity in the α or θ frequencies, 19 had preserved cerebral blood flow, 2 had preserved supratentorial cerebral perfusion, 2 had cortical responses to visual evoked potentials, and 1 had cortical responses to somatosensory evoked potentials. At the latest follow-up, 28 had progressed to whole-brain death.
Discussion Studies with moderate to high risk of bias suggest that infratentorial brain injury is relatively uncommon among patients suspected of DNC. Isolated brainstem death is rarer and seems to carry a high risk of progression to whole-brain death. These findings require further high-quality investigation.
Glossary
- DNC=
- death by neurologic criteria
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editor was Rebecca Burch, MD.
- Received May 2, 2022.
- Accepted in final form September 8, 2022.
- © 2022 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
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
- Author Response: Infratentorial Brain Injury Among Patients Suspected of Death by Neurologic Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- Reader Response: Infratentorial Brain Injury Among Patients Suspected of Death by Neurologic Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
