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: Withdrawal of support in patients with severe brain injury invariably leads to death. Preconceived notions about futility of care in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) may prompt withdrawal of support, and modeling outcome in patient populations in whom withdrawal of support occurs may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.
Methods: Subjects included consecutive patients with supratentorial ICH. Radiographic characteristics of the hemorrhage, clinical variables, and neurologic outcome were assessed. Attitudes about futility of care were examined among members of the departments of neurology and neurologic surgery through a written survey and case presentations.
Results: There were 87 patients with supratentorial ICH; overall mortality was 34.5% (30/87). Mortality was 66.7% (18/27) in patients with Glasgow Coma Score ≤8 and ICH volume >60 cm3. Medical support was withdrawn in 76.7% (23/30) of patients who died. Inclusion of a variable to account for the withdrawal of support in a model predicting outcome negated the predictive value of all other variables. Patients undergoing surgical decompression were unlikely to have support withdrawn, and surgery was less likely to be performed in older patients (p < 0.01) and patients with left hemispheric hemorrhage (p = 0.04). Survey results suggested that practitioners tend to be overly pessimistic in prognosticating outcome based upon data available at the time of presentation.
Conclusions: The most important prognostic variable in determining outcome after ICH is the level of medical support provided. Withdrawal of support in patients felt likely to have a “poor outcome” biases predictive models and leads to self-fulfilling prophecies. Our data show that individual patients in traditionally “poor outcome” categories can have a reasonable neurologic outcome when treated aggressively.
- Received September 8, 2000.
- Accepted November 21, 2000.
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
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
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.
You May Also be Interested in
Differences in Age-related Retinal and Cortical Atrophy Rates in Multiple Sclerosis
Prof. Massimo Filippi and Dr. Paolo Preziosa