ライフサイエンスコーパス: brain death

1 fter the death of their relative in the ICU (brain death).

2 fter the death of their relative in the ICU (brain death).

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

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

5 onal policies regarding the determination of brain death.

6 s pertaining to the criteria for determining brain death.

7 inued prior to the clinical determination of brain death.

8 processes are perturbed in the kidney after brain death.

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

10 er cerebral angiography performed to confirm brain death.

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

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

13 sents an inflammatory and injury response to brain death.

14 mbers of patients suspected to have suffered brain death.

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

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

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

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

19 nteen percent (95% CI, 0.12-0.23%) developed brain death.

20 s donors with cardiac arrest occurring after brain death.

21 dneys donated after circulatory death versus brain death.

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

23 can be completed must remain consistent with brain death.

24 accepted neurologic examination criteria for brain death.

25 trategy before performing the CTA to confirm brain death.

26 dispose donor hearts to LV dysfunction after brain death.

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

28 e neurologic examination was consistent with brain death.

29 can be completed must remain consistent with brain death.

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

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

32 the procurement procedures for donors after brain death.

33 gans by reducing metabolic disturbances post-brain death.

34 produced by ischemia-reperfusion injury and brain death.

35 emic and pulmonary inflammatory responses to brain death.

36 All cytokines were increased following brain death.

37 eatly increased after the induction of donor brain death.

38 intracranial hemorrhage, cerebral edema, and brain death.

39 pulmonary edema and reverses hypoxemia after brain death.

40 rio vertebrate zebrafish disease models from brain death.

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

42 myloid fibrils, and how such species promote brain death.

43 0% accurate and appropriate determination of brain death.

44 s to the proinflammatory milieu generated by brain death.

45 (1.9%), intracranial hemorrhage (3.5%), and brain death (1.6%).

46 mic brain injury (13% vs 1%; p < 0.001), and brain death (11% vs 1%; p = 0.001).

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

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

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

50 hemic brain injury (7% vs 1%; p = 0.02), and brain death (9% vs 1%; p = 0.005) remained more frequent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61 23 centres; 8289 kidneys were donated after brain death and 845 after controlled cardiac death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 production in kidneys from both donors after brain death and donors after circulatory death (2367 +/-

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

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

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

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

75 xisting animal models that incorporate donor brain death and subsequent HTx and assessed studies for

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

77 Donors after brain death and their organ recipients.

78 s) via nasogastric tube after declaration of brain death and upon acceptance as a cardiac donor, or t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

86 ands brain death to be; (2) how views toward brain death are compared with those of cardiac death; an

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

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

89 acranial hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, and/or brain death, as a composite outcome (odds ratio, 1.63; 9

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

91 ter euthanasia vs after circulatory death or brain death at a hospital in Belgium, where euthanasia i

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

93 omplement-driven inflammatory response after brain death (BD) and posttransplant reperfusion injury p

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

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

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

97 ascular protective effects in lung tissue of brain death (BD) male rats.

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

99 changes in growth hormone (GH) levels after brain death (BD), and the effects of modulating GH throu

100 the 125 consented cases, 101 (81%) developed brain death (BD), most in 72 hours or less.

101 Brain death (BD)-associated inflammation has been implic

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

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

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

105 increase in younger HCV viremic donors after brain death being identified.

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

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

108 nd phenotypes were matched with donors after brain death characteristics and indications, timing, sur

109 %, and 77.7% (compared with a donation after brain death cohort in the same period [n = 7221] 94%, 91

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

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

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

113 together, our results suggest that views of brain death continue to hamper organ donation, and are s

114 investigated whether the poor acceptance of brain death continues to the present day, focusing on th

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

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

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

118 rked heterogeneity in animal models of donor brain death coupled to HTx, with few research groups wor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

129 of cardiac arrest time (CAT) in donors after brain death (DBD) donors on pancreas transplant outcome.

130 1209 LTs were performed from donation after brain death (DBD) donors, and 24 were performed from DCD

131 er circulatory death (DCD) or donation after brain death (DBD) donors.

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

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

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

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

136 th (DCD) or extended criteria donation after brain death (DBD) human liver grafts during the last 7 y

137 outcomes after DCD in FHF to donation after brain death (DBD) in FHF and DCD in non-FHF over a 15-ye

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

139 , 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney-only transplants were performed

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

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

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

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

144 ollowing cDCD LT with NRP and donation after brain death (DBD) LT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

151 utcomes of 30 DCD SLK and 131 donation after brain death (DBD) SLK from Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo

152 th (DCD) is an alternative to Donation after Brain death (DBD), and is a growing strategy for organ p

153 2014 were separated into DCD, donation after brain death (DBD), and living donor (LD) transplants, an

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

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

156 (16%) transitioned to an actual donor after brain death (DBD).

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

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

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

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

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

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

163 1, 2012, and April 30, 2015, (donation after brain death [DBD] donors) and March 1, 2013, and April 3

164 06 and 2010 (65.5% DCD, 34.5% donation after brain death [DBD]) were reviewed and baseline chronic de

165 kidney biopsies with URC (n = 8 donors after brain death [DBD], n = 8 donors after circulatory death

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

167 of 265 OLTs using livers of donations after brain death (DBDs).

168 Unlike conventional donation after brain death, DCD organs undergo a period of warm, global

169 1 entitled 'A Question of Life or Death: The Brain Death Debate.' Two panels debated the issues on th

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

171 Induced hypothermia and brain death determination.

172 ul cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts or brain death diagnoses.

173 Brain death diagnosis relies on clinical signs, but conf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

204 Brain death however creates ambivalent experiences that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 e in the PaO2/FIO2 ratio and lower values at brain death, in the whole study population (estimated ma

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

217 s), in selected potential organ donors after brain death increased lung eligibility and procurement.O

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

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

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

221 Brain death induces a massive inflammatory response.

222 Brain death induces dramatic changes in hemodynamics.

223 Brain death induces inflammation evidenced by the up-reg

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

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

226 Brain death is also believed to increase tissue factor (

227 Summary Brain death is defined as the irreversible cessation of

228 nical work indicates that renal status after brain death is negatively impacted by inflammation and r

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

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

231 Brain death is principally established using clinical cr

232 Brain death is the irreversible cessation of function of

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

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

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

236 Brain death leads to increased superoxide production, de

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

238 Brain death leads to metabolic disturbances in the kidne

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

240 Historically, brain death legislation was adopted in Asia at a much la

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

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

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

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

245 Cerebral injury during donation after brain death may induce systemic damage affecting long-te

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

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

248 ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or brain death.Measurements and Main Results: We included 1

249 othermically, with 6 being from donors after brain death (median cold ischemia time 33 +/- 36.9 hours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

259 Brain death, or death by neurological criteria (BD/DNC),

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

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

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

263 f cardiac death; and (3) the extent to which brain death perception contributes to the low rate of de

264 Our results suggest that resistance toward brain death persists, with the majority of respondents e

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

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

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

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

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

270 >/= 170 cm tall, of non-black race, suffered brain death secondary to trauma, hepatitis C antibody-ne

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

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

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

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

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

276 owing: (1) what the Asian public understands brain death to be; (2) how views toward brain death are

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

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

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

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

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 landrace pigs by stepwis

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 Hearts are sourced from donors following brain death, which exposes donor hearts to substantial p

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

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

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

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

300 d all reported donors aged 18-70 years after brain death without a lung recovery contraindication and