Agarwal, Sachin

ImportanceUnderstanding the relationship between patients’ clinical characteristics and outcomes is fundamental to medicine. When critically ill patients die after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST), the inability to observe the potential for recovery with continued aggressive care could bias future clinical decisions and research.ObjectiveTo quantify the frequency with which experts consider patients who died after WLST following resuscitated cardiac arrest to have had recovery potential if life-sustaining therapy had been continued.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective cohort study included comatose adult patients (aged ≥18 years) treated following resuscitation from cardiac arrest at a single academic medical center between January 1, 2010, and July 31, 2022. Patients with advanced directives limiting critical care or who experienced cardiac arrest of traumatic or neurologic etiology were excluded. An international cohort of experts in post-arrest care based on clinical experience and academic productivity was identified. Experts reviewed the cases between August 24, 2022, and February 11, 2024.ExposurePatients who died after WLST.Main Outcome and MeasuresThree or more experts independently estimated recovery potential for each patient had life-sustaining treatment been continued, using a 7-point numerical ordinal scale. In the primary analysis, which involved the patient cases with death after WLST, a 1% or greater estimated recovery potential was considered to be clinically meaningful. In secondary analyses, thresholds of 5% and 10% estimated recovery probability were explored.ResultsA total of 2391 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [48-69] years; 1455 men [60.9%]) were included, of whom 714 (29.9%) survived to discharge. Cases of uncertain outcome (1431 patients [59.8%]) in which WLST preceded death were reviewed by 38 experts who rendered 4381 estimates of recovery potential. In 518 cases (36.2%; 95% CI, 33.7%-38.7%), all experts believed that recovery potential was less than 1% if life-sustaining therapies had been continued. In the remaining 913 cases (63.8%; 95% CI, 61.3%-66.3%), at least 1 expert believed that recovery potential was at least 1%. In 227 cases (15.9%; 95% CI, 14.0%-17.9%), all experts agreed that recovery potential was at least 1%, and in 686 cases (47.9%; 95% CI, 45.3%-50.6%), expert estimates differed at this threshold.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest, most who died after WLST were considered by experts to have had recovery potential. These findings suggest that novel solutions to avoiding deaths based on biased prognostication or incomplete information are needed.

Background and Purpose— The ABC/2 score estimates intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume, yet validations have been limited by small samples and inappropriate outcome measures. We determined accuracy of the ABC/2 score calculated at a specialized reading center (RC-ABC) or local site (site-ABC) versus the reference-standard computed tomography–based planimetry (CTP). Methods— In Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation-II (MISTIE-II), Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage (CLEAR-IVH) and CLEAR-III trials. ICH volume was prospectively calculated by CTP, RC-ABC, and site-ABC. Agreement between CTP and ABC/2 was defined as an absolute difference up to 5 mL and relative difference within 20%. Determinants of ABC/2 accuracy were assessed by logistic regression. Results— In 4369 scans from 507 patients, CTP was more strongly correlated with RC-ABC ( r 2 =0.93) than with site-ABC ( r 2 =0.87). Although RC-ABC overestimated CTP-based volume on average (RC-ABC, 15.2 cm 3 ; CTP, 12.7 cm3), agreement was reasonable when categorized into mild, moderate, and severe ICH (κ=0.75; P <0.001). This was consistent with overestimation of ICH volume in 6 of 8 previous studies. Agreement with CTP was greater for RC-ABC (84% within 5 mL; 48% of scans within 20%) than for site-ABC (81% within 5 mL; 41% within 20%). RC-ABC had moderate accuracy for detecting ≥5 mL change in CTP volume between consecutive scans (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.86) and was more accurate with smaller ICH, thalamic hemorrhage, and homogeneous clots. Conclusions— ABC/2 scores at local or central sites are sufficiently accurate to categorize ICH volume and assess eligibility for the CLEAR-III and MISTIE III studies and moderately accurate for change in ICH volume. However, accuracy decreases with large, irregular, or lobar clots. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: MISTIE-II NCT00224770; CLEAR-III NCT00784134.