ライフサイエンスコーパス: brain death

1 ed as potentially useful in the diagnosis of brain death.

2 oon catheter with saline (1 mL/20 min) until brain death.

3 raphy - a reference test in the diagnosis of brain death.

4 ra-renal organs compared with donation after brain death.

5 s donors with cardiac arrest occurring after brain death.

6 dneys donated after circulatory death versus brain death.

7 is not recognized as a legal test to confirm brain death.

8 can be completed must remain consistent with brain death.

9 accepted neurologic examination criteria for brain death.

10 trategy before performing the CTA to confirm brain death.

11 dispose donor hearts to LV dysfunction after brain death.

12 of IL-1, TNF-alpha and IL-10 were seen after brain death.

13 accepted neurologic examination criteria for brain death.

14 e neurologic examination was consistent with brain death.

15 can be completed must remain consistent with brain death.

16 mination after a duration of 6 hrs confirmed brain death.

17 ose, 88 (78%) died from nonsurvivable TBI or brain death.

18 ts a decrease in the number of patients with brain death.

19 gans by reducing metabolic disturbances post-brain death.

20 produced by ischemia-reperfusion injury and brain death.

21 emic and pulmonary inflammatory responses to brain death.

22 All cytokines were increased following brain death.

23 eatly increased after the induction of donor brain death.

24 e parameters to standardize determination of brain death.

25 0% accurate and appropriate determination of brain death.

26 e 2010 AAN update on practice parameters for brain death.

27 w guidelines in 2010 on the determination of brain death.

28 onal policies regarding the determination of brain death.

29 s pertaining to the criteria for determining brain death.

30 inued prior to the clinical determination of brain death.

31 processes are perturbed in the kidney after brain death.

32 am has been at the expense of donation after brain death.

33 er cerebral angiography performed to confirm brain death.

34 and 6) implications for organ donation after brain death.

35 that very few of these survivors progress to brain death.

36 sents an inflammatory and injury response to brain death.

37 mbers of patients suspected to have suffered brain death.

38 There were 19 donors (6 donations after brain death, 13 donations after circulatory death), with

39 ulated that an attending physician determine brain death; 150 policies did not mention who could perf

40 ded 181 intracranial hemorrhage (42.5%), 100 brain deaths (23.5%), 85 stroke (19.9%), and 60 seizure

41 ist the clinician in making the diagnosis of brain death a) when components of the examination or apn

42 ist the clinician in making the diagnosis of brain death (a) when components of the examination or ap

43 kedly diminished 10 hours after induction of brain death-a decline that was obviated by administratio

44 causes of death, multiple organ failure and brain death affected respectively 40% and 27% of patient

45 Here, we investigate whether donor brain death affects tolerance induction.

46 racranial hypertension develops and leads to brain death after brainstem herniation or to anoxic brai

47 ly recommend caution in the determination of brain death after cardiac arrest when induced hypothermi

48 Patients who progress to brain death after resuscitation from cardiac arrest have

49 ame rapidly infused with terms such as whole brain death (all intracranial structures above the foram

50 ter cardiac death compared to donation after brain death allografts (23% vs. 19% P<0.001).

51 23 centres; 8289 kidneys were donated after brain death and 845 after controlled cardiac death.

52 al blood flow) are not required to establish brain death and are not a substitute for the neurologic

53 al blood flow) are not required to establish brain death and are not a substitute for the neurologic

54 g new corroborative data on the diagnosis of brain death and clarifying the United Kingdom position.

55 that TCD shortens the time between clinical brain death and computed tomography angiography (CTA) co

56 m prognostic uncertainty to the diagnosis of brain death and considerations of organ donation.

57 a shorter time between clinical diagnosis of brain death and CTA confirmation compared with conventio

58 ucing the time between clinical diagnosis of brain death and CTA confirmation.

59 e often confused by non-medical specialists, brain death and disorders of consciousness such as coma,

60 s for a global standard on the definition of brain death and donation after death by cardiac criteria

61 in the circulation and in the tissues after brain death and have been associated with dysfunction of

62 ife care practices to allow the evolution of brain death and increasing the availability of ancillary

63 anagement to ameliorate the damage caused by brain death and ischemia-reperfusion injury in a rat mod

64 The lack of standardization of brain death and organ donation criteria worldwide contri

65 ad an increased incidence of cerebrovascular brain death and preexisting donor hypertension, and had

66 a exacerbates the pulmonary injury caused by brain death and primes the lung for ischemia reperfusion

67 Donor brain death and prolonged liver graft preservation do no

68 This alternative is based not on brain death and the dead-donor rule, but on the ethical

69 recapitulates the historical development of brain death and the evolution of scintigraphic examinati

70 rs emotional support and education regarding brain death and the value of transplantation.

71 Donors after brain death and their organ recipients.

72 established guidelines for the diagnosis of brain death and, in 1995, the American Academy of Neurol

73 the health care professional who determines brain death, and 212 (43.1%) stipulated that an attendin

74 Of these 7 patients, 4 had brain death, and 3 had irreversible injury that preclude

75 duced graft function, future renal recovery, brain death, and need for dialysis, but not with future

76 and ethical ramifications of the concepts of brain death, and of controversies involved in controlled

77 Discussing severe brain injury, brain death, and organ donation after brain death with f

78 ision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care.

79 es present during normal pregnancy and after brain death, and the critical needs for fetal developmen

80 onated after controlled cardiac death versus brain death, and to identify the factors that affect gra

81 rimental neurogenic pulmonary edema," "donor brain death," and "donor lung injury." DATA EXTRACTION:

82 ments or state statutes, criteria to certify brain death are specified by medical staff and administr

83 n the United States for the determination of brain death are still widely variable and not fully cong

84 Mortality rate was 100%, with brain death as the leading cause.

85 with 86 recipients of kidney donations after brain death at 1-year after transplantation.

86 The second examination confirms brain death based on an unchanged and irreversible condi

87 The second examination confirms brain death based on an unchanged and irreversible condi

88 Brain death (BD) can immunologically prime the donor org

89 Systemic inflammation associated with brain death (BD) decreases islet yield and quality, nega

90 to HB donation, 4,855 cases met criteria for brain death (BD) diagnosis and were considered potential

91 Donor brain death (BD) has been implicated as a risk factor fo

92 a therapeutic purpose was deemed futile and brain death (BD) was a likely outcome.

93 Brain death (BD)-related lipid peroxidation, measured as

94 It is imperative that brain death be diagnosed accurately in every patient.

95 not on the brainstem, and the definition of brain death became rapidly infused with terms such as wh

96 be associated with cardiac dysfunction after brain death, but these relationships require further stu

97 lay an expanded role in the determination of brain death by improving accuracy and facilitating effec

98 y diversity among hospital standards used in brain death certification.

99 The expected physiologic changes after brain death, challenges to successful somatic support, a

100 Development of the concept of brain death coincided with advances in medical technolog

101 bout DCD, psychological barriers for DCD vs. brain death, concerns about whether death has been reach

102 donation after circulatory death donors had brain death confirmed or had clinical indications of bra

103 sociated with ischemia-reperfusion injury or brain death contribute to innate immune activation, prom

104 th (all supratentorial structures) or higher brain death (cortical structures) virtually synonymous w

105 In the USA, many experts felt that brain death could be only determined by demonstrating de

106 r irreversible neurologic injury not meeting brain death criteria), there are variations in all aspec

107 history of further refinement of UK and USA brain death criteria, one particular period stands out t

108 brain death; inconsistent legal upholding of brain death criteria; racial, ethnic, and religious pers

109 identified 855 DCD and 21,089 donation after brain death (DBD) adult, initial, whole-organ, liver-onl

110 ed fourteen (68%) kidneys were donated after brain death (DBD) and 192 (32%) after cardiac death (DCD

111 The presence of DGF in 213 donation after brain death (DBD) and 312 DCD kidney transplants from Oc

112 re the outcomes of DCD SLK to donation after brain death (DBD) and determine the impact of donor and

113 dney biopsies were taken from donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after cardiac death (DCD)

114 Kidneys from Donation after Brain Death (DBD) and Donation after Circulatory Death (

115 echniques may be adequate for donation after brain death (DBD) and low-risk DCD pancreases, as the nu

116 1209 LTs were performed from donation after brain death (DBD) donors, and 24 were performed from DCD

117 ere possible compared these with donor after brain death (DBD) donors.

118 that is comparable to that of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts in both low- and high-risk reci

119 r circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts with the novel Comprehensive Co

120 Organ donation after brain death (DBD) has declined in the United Kingdom, wh

121 o 7.9 pmp) while the numbers of donors after brain death (DBD) has remained broadly stable (around 10

122 after cardiac death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) kidney transplantation.

123 , 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney-only transplants were performed

124 DGF) in recipients of DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) kidneys undergoing PP or CS.

125 ital costs for 28 DCD and 198 donation after brain death (DBD) liver recipients.

126 HCV, 1164 non-HCV) and 54 129 donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation between 2002 and

127 With donation after brain death (DBD) livers, HCV recipients had significant

128 ere compared with a cohort of donation after brain death (DBD) LTx recipients (n = 331) transplanted

129 ive a donor kidney from elderly donors after brain death (DBD) or after circulatory death (DCD).

130 There were 12 864 intended donation after brain death (DBD) or DCD donors from April 2004 to March

131 n all children who received a donation after brain death (DBD) or LD kidney-only transplant between 2

132 during procurement from DCD and donors after brain death (DBD) organ donors.

133 with propensity-risk-matched donation after brain death (DBD) patients and (2) in the DCD patients s

134 2014 were separated into DCD, donation after brain death (DBD), and living donor (LD) transplants, an

135 in transplants using DCD and donation after brain death (DBD), propensity score matching was perform

136 ns induces remote IPC (RIPC) in donors after brain death (DBD).

137 t differ from those raised in donation after brain death (DBD).

138 rdiac death (DCD) compared with donors after brain death (DBD).

139 h donor organs recovered from donation after brain death (DBD).

140 inferior outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD).

141 (16%) transitioned to an actual donor after brain death (DBD).

142 rm ischemia time = 2 min) and donation after brain death (DBD, n = 76, warm ischemia time = none) wer

143 s) compared with kidneys from donation-after-brain-death (DBD) and donation-after-cardiac-death (DCD)

144 ational cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2

145 aastricht-Category-3-DCDD and donation-after-brain-death (DBD) offers to our program.

146 1, 2012, and April 30, 2015, (donation after brain death [DBD] donors) and March 1, 2013, and April 3

147 06 and 2010 (65.5% DCD, 34.5% donation after brain death [DBD]) were reviewed and baseline chronic de

148 retrospective review of 1157 "donation after brain death" (DBD) and 87 DCD liver transplants performe

149 1 entitled 'A Question of Life or Death: The Brain Death Debate.' Two panels debated the issues on th

150 ters, the differences between the UK and USA brain death determination would become much less apparen

151 Induced hypothermia and brain death determination.

152 ul cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts or brain death diagnoses.

153 Brain death diagnosis relies on clinical signs, but conf

154 organ donation, barriers to organ donation, brain death, donation after cardiac death, and organ tra

155 neys tolerate cold storage less well than do brain-death donor kidneys and this finding should be con

156 donor warm ischemic times; one liver from a brain-death donor was declined for high liver function t

157 Each DCD transplant was matched with 2 brain death donors (DBD) grafts (n = 333) according to t

158 High-risk brain death donors and donors after cardiac death underw

159 Islet recovery was reduced in brain death donors compared with controls (at 6 h 602.3

160 The number of donation after brain death donors could increase with changes in end-of

161 Brain death donors presented lower insulin release after

162 islets was reduced in islets recovered from brain death donors, an effect associated with higher nuc

163 pancreata were procured from donation after brain death donors, with 314 (19.5%) from donation after

164 cantly reduced in preparations obtained from brain death donors.

165 nimal impact on the number of donation after brain death donors.

166 circulatory-death donors than for those from brain-death donors (2.36, 1.39-4.02, p for interaction=0

167 kidneys from cardiac-death donors (n=739) or brain-death donors (n=6759) showed no difference in graf

168 ath donors older than 60 years compared with brain-death donors in the same age group (p=0.30).

169 ve equivalent graft survival to kidneys from brain-death donors in the same age group, and are accept

170 ve equivalent graft survival to kidneys from brain-death donors in the same age group, and are accept

171 d univariate comparisons of transplants from brain-death donors versus circulatory-death donors with

172 haemia on kidneys from circulatory-death and brain-death donors.

173 cipients, and are equivalent to kidneys from brain-death donors.

174 table number of potential organ donors after brain death, donors after circulatory death have been an

175 Explosive brain death (EBD) is accompanied by a sudden increase in

176 Family presence during brain death evaluation improves understanding of brain d

177 Family presence during brain death evaluation is feasible and safe.

178 ght family members of 17 patients undergoing brain death evaluation were enrolled: 38 family members

179 resence or absence at bedside throughout the brain death evaluation with a trained chaperone.

180 olled: 38 family members were present for 11 brain death evaluations and 20 family members were absen

181 ns and 20 family members were absent for six brain death evaluations.

182 tating prognosis, took in the results of the brain death examination, and considered the option of or

183 the ability to determine irreversibility of brain death findings in patients treated with hypothermi

184 CD examination every 2 hr until intracranial brain death flow patterns were found).

185 eries as a whole were 11.3%; after excluding brain death from severe head injury, there were 6.4% mis

186 igher amounts of succinate were found in the brain death group, in conjunction with increased markers

187 n the uDCD group than in the donations after brain death group.

188 The concept of brain death has long been recognized, however, to be pla

189 suggest that chronic hypotension after donor brain death has the potential to limit cardiac function

190 Racial disparities in donations after brain death have been well described for renal transplan

191 ssessments of nitric oxide bioactivity after brain death have not been performed.

192 ine ameliorates the inflammatory response to brain death, however norepinephrine has deleterious effe

193 instructed to procure protocols specific to brain death (ie, not cardiac death or organ donation pro

194 judged to have the potential to progress to brain death if withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment h

195 curred in 682 patients (15.1%), and included brain death in 358 patients (7.9%), cerebral infarction

196 t would be eligible and equipped to evaluate brain death in a patient.

197 es and the controversies in the diagnosis of brain death in children.

198 trics established guidelines for determining brain death in children.

199 National registry data of all donors after brain death in France and their organ recipients between

200 CD8 T-lymphocytes are commonly reduced after brain death in HIV- individuals.

201 NS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Determination of brain death in term newborns, infants, and children is a

202 1) Determination of brain death in term newborns, infants, and children is a

203 circulatory death program on donation after brain death in the United Kingdom.

204 e variable clinical and legal definitions of brain death; inconsistent legal upholding of brain death

205 of deceased-donor kidneys are donated after brain death, increased recovery of kidneys donated after

206 We conducted a case-control study to assess brain death-induced inflammatory effects in human pancre

207 could be a novel approach to ameliorate this brain death-induced kidney injury.

208 Brain death induces a massive inflammatory response.

209 Brain death induces dramatic changes in hemodynamics.

210 Brain death induces inflammation evidenced by the up-reg

211 Several additional swine underwent brain death induction and/or mechanical ventilation alon

212 Shortly after brain death induction, a significant increase in serum t

213 We conclude by placing brain death into a broader conceptual framework that tak

214 Explosive brain death is a significant determinant for the late de

215 Brain death is also believed to increase tissue factor (

216 Brain death is characterized by activation of proinflamm

217 Summary Brain death is defined as the irreversible cessation of

218 Brain death is essential to current practices of organ r

219 pe Town in the 1980s demonstrated that acute brain death is followed by massive catecholamine release

220 Organ function after brain death is negatively impacted by reduced perfusion

221 he black market (81%) and that recovery from brain death is possible (65%), whereas nearly half belie

222 Brain death is principally established using clinical cr

223 Brain death is the irreversible cessation of function of

224 ctive of ancillary tests in the diagnosis of brain death is to demonstrate the absence of cerebral el

225 ry is induced by multiple factors, including brain death, ischemia-reperfusion, alloimmune responses,

226 issues at stake, and (unlike the concept of brain death) it avoids conceptual confusion and inconsis

227 parable function and survival to donors with brain death kidneys, although they have higher rates of

228 ard-criteria kidneys from white donors after brain death, kidneys from black donors after cardiac dea

229 Brain death leads to increased superoxide production, de

230 s, there is an urgent need to understand how brain death leads to kidney dysfunction and, hence, how

231 Brain death leads to metabolic disturbances in the kidne

232 The autonomic storm accompanying brain death leads to neurogenic pulmonary edema and trig

233 ed similar results as control donation after brain death livers in all investigated endpoints.

234 onsible for the differences, including donor brain death, longer cold ischemia time, diabetogenic imm

235 Absence of some of the squeal of brain death may be a further potential advantage.

236 le-center studies showed that LVSD following brain death may be transient, and such hearts can be suc

237 among hospital policies for certification of brain death may permit variability among hospitals throu

238 of endocrine nitric oxide bioactivity after brain death may provide a novel means to improve the qua

239 factors and found this correlated with post-brain death mean arterial pressures.

240 4) Apnea testing to support the diagnosis of brain death must be performed safely and requires docume

241 4) Apnea testing to support the diagnosis of brain death must be performed safely and requires docume

242 rence between circulatory-death (n=1768) and brain-death (n=4127) groups (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95-1.36,

243 s (Group 2: 4 h of donor ventilation without brain death [n = 5]; and Group 3: no donor brain death w

244 associated with organ donation included age, brain death, neurological diagnoses, chest x-ray finding

245 rom these reports and other literature about brain death, normal physiologic changes of pregnancy, an

246 ted data on donor demographics, mechanism of brain death, number of organs procured and transplanted,

247 In those rare cases of brain death occurring in a pregnant patient, continued s

248 e primarily involved in organ donation after brain death of ICU patients.

249 and reutilization of liver allografts after brain death of the first recipient.

250 In this study, we assessed the effects of brain death on islet isolation yields and functionality.

251 lead to strategies to reduce the effects of brain death on pancreatic islets and improve the results

252 ed donor age, sex, height, type (donor after brain death or circulatory death), bilirubin, smoking hi

253 We excluded patients who had brain death or were not intubated.

254 red to PSC patients receiving donation after brain death organs (n=1592).

255 art) are now approaching that of donors with brain death organs.

256 njured as a result of detrimental effects of brain death, pancreas preservation, islet isolation, hyp

257 ients of pediatric kidneys from donors after brain death (PDBD).

258 Twenty-four hrs after brain death pronouncement, on arrival to the operating r

259 if survival is null, the high proportion of brain deaths provides opportunity for organ donation.

260 Among donation after brain death recipients, biliary complications were assoc

261 ormalize the chronic hypotension produced by brain death reduced the expression of PAR to a level bel

262 gic deficit scores (NDS 0-10%, normal; 100%, brain death), regional and total brain histologic damage

263 ol to include cardiac arrest as the cause of brain death requires further study.

264 Brain death results in adverse pathophysiologic effects

265 Brain death results in cardiovascular instability and po

266 >/= 170 cm tall, of non-black race, suffered brain death secondary to trauma, hepatitis C antibody-ne

267 Neurologic injury was defined as brain death, seizures, stroke, and intracranial hemorrha

268 In conclusion, brain death significantly reduced islet yields and funct

269 t physicians in relation to determination of brain death, suitability of victims for organ donation,

270 were administered a validated "understanding brain death" survey before and after the intervention.

271 um observation period after rewarming before brain death testing ensues should be established.

272 nly three patients (2%) could have undergone brain death testing.

273 Rarely, profound hypoglycemia causes brain death that is not the result of fuel deprivation p

274 Based on the mode of donor brain death, this cohort was divided into either an EBD

275 This study uses a rat model of brain death to determine the profile of PARP activation

276 ed that the maximum potential donation after brain death to donation after circulatory death substitu

277 Brain death understanding, Impact of Event Scale, and Ge

278 to assist in supporting pregnant women after brain death until delivery of a mature fetus who is like

279 ia, but claimed that patients diagnosed with brain death using United Kingdom criteria could recover.

280 The concept of brain death was developed, in part, to allow patients wi

281 Once the clinical diagnosis of brain death was established, subjects were randomized in

282 Brain death was induced in 64 ventilated male Fisher rat

283 Brain death was induced in instrumented swine by inflati

284 Brain death was induced in male 250- to 350-g Lewis rats

285 Brain death was induced in Wistar rats by intracranial b

286 in CTA performed to confirm the diagnosis of brain death was not different between groups.

287 elease of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) during brain death was reduced in the NOD group.

288 The novel construct of "brain death" was introduced 50 years ago, yet there pers

289 zures, dysphagia, autonomic dysfunction, and brain death) was consistent with rabies.

290 Following declaration of brain death, we collected data on donor demographics, me

291 Patients with incomplete data or brain death were excluded.

292 ant dialysis and nontraumatic cause of donor brain death were identified as independent risk factors

293 non-HCV donors less than 35 years old after brain death were reviewed.

294 is qualified to perform the determination of brain death, what are the necessary prerequisites for te

295 t brain death [n = 5]; and Group 3: no donor brain death with <1 h of ventilation [n = 6]).

296 We evaluated the association of mode of brain death with cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

297 ath confirmed or had clinical indications of brain death with clear mitigating circumstances in all b

298 njury, brain death, and organ donation after brain death with families is a specialized form of end-o

299 n death evaluation improves understanding of brain death with no apparent adverse impact on psycholog

300 To describe donors after brain death with ongoing extracorporeal membrane oxygena