This Article Abstract Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alexandrov, A. V. Articles by Norris, J. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alexandrov, A. V. Articles by Norris, J. W.

(Stroke. 1996;27:232-237.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Agreement on Disease-Specific Criteria for Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Acute Stroke

Andrei V. Alexandrov, MD; Patrick M. Pullicino, MD; Eric M. Meslin, PhD; John W. Norris, MD for the members of the Canadian Western New York Stroke Consortiums

From the Stroke Program, Department of Neurology, Buffalo General Hospital, State University of New York at Buffalo (A.V.A., P.M.P.); and the Stroke Research Unit (A.V.A., J.W.N.) and the Clinical Ethics Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre and Centre for Bioethics (E.M.M.), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Correspondence to Dr A.V. Alexandrov, Stroke Research Unit, 20754 Bayview Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
Background and Purpose The do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is a mechanism of withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The lack of DNR guidelines specific for acute stroke may result in many stroke patients receiving unnecessary and futile resuscitation and ventilator-assisted breathing.

Methods A prospective multicenter evaluation of disease-specific criteria for DNR orders in acute stroke was initiated using a modified Delphi process. The participants were the Canadian and Western New York Stroke Consortium members who are closely involved in caring for acute stroke patients and conducting clinical trials at the academic centers. Previously published provisional criteria were reviewed by the participants. Modifications were made to the criteria until statistically significant agreement (P<.05, z score, or 67% similar answers) was achieved.

Results Disease-specific criteria for DNR orders in acute stroke were discussed by 26 physicians in three rounds of the opinion survey. An agreement was reached that a "no resuscitation" decision is appropriate when any two of the following three clinical criteria are present (the degree of agreement is given in parentheses): severe stroke (88%, P=.00007), life-threatening brain damage (73%, P<.01), and significant comorbidities (92%, P=.00003). The poor prognosis implied by these criteria should be discussed whenever possible among physician(s), the patient, and family members before the decision to withhold CPR is made. Eighty-one percent of the participants agreed that these disease-specific criteria are appropriate for clinical use (P=.0008).

Conclusions Disease-specific criteria for DNR orders were developed to supplement general DNR policies for patients with hemispheric brain infarction and intracerebral hemorrhage during the first 2 weeks of stroke. A significant agreement was reached by a panel of physicians that patients with acute stroke should not be resuscitated if these disease-specific criteria are met.

Key Words: hospitalization • outcome • resuscitation orders

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
In both the Canadian and US healthcare systems, practice guidelines limit physicians' discretion in choice of treatment.¹ General guidelines for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were first introduced in 1976² and have been regularly updated since. Current general guidelines for DNR orders cover a wide range of terminal illnesses, of which stroke is one of the most common. Every year 550 000 people in the United States have a stroke (nearly 1% of all hospital admissions nationwide), and 150 000 of them die.³ Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) does not improve the outcome in patients with severe acute stroke^{4 5} ; however, life-sustaining measures may also include mechanical ventilators. In a recent study,⁶ 170 patients with acute stroke were admitted to an intensive care unit and received life support with ventilators; only 28% were discharged and only 8% of all patients survived more than 1 year. Survival and its predictor (higher Glasgow Coma Scale scores) were similar in the study by Grotta et al,⁷ which suggested that elective intubation may achieve satisfactory outcome. However, no definite conclusions could be drawn from both studies, since a control group was absent.

Mortality during the first week of stroke is determined primarily by compression of vital centers in the brain stem due to brain swelling and herniation.^{8 9} Although reliable clinical predictors of fatal outcome in hypoxic-ischemic coma were established,¹⁰ a broad spectrum of neurological signs and impairment of consciousness at stroke onset make prognostication unclear. Stroke differs from other terminal illnesses in that the patient may be alert and have cognitive capacity for several days after the onset of hemiplegia but before the development of coma. Therefore, early prognosis of acute stroke is sometimes difficult to assess even for an experienced observer, although this is essential for institution of DNR. Disease-specific guidelines for CPR in acute stroke were developed,¹¹ but these guidelines do not aid DNR decisions particular to acute stroke.

The patient's wishes concerning CPR and mechanical ventilation are paramount in "no resuscitation" decision making.¹² The patient, however, must be fully apprised of the risk-benefit ratio of the procedure⁷ and needs to be informed when the intervention is likely to be unsuccessful. Thus, aggressive treatment of the hopelessly ill patient is inadvisable when such treatment would only prolong dying by bringing no improvement.¹² The controversy in physicians' attitudes toward management of patients with acute stroke^{13 14} indicates that criteria are needed to determine when a patient with acute stroke has a grave prognosis and thus will be unresponsive to CPR and mechanical ventilation.

Discussions regarding the provision of life-sustaining treatment, particularly CPR, have focused attention on the ethical issues arising from the use of "futility" as a standard for nontreatment and whether the likelihood of benefit should be determined by patients rather than physicians.^{1 2 13 15 16} Any attempt to guide decision making in this area has to be assessed in the clinical environment. Given that stroke is a major cause of mortality and a risk factor for subsequent stroke, stroke patients may be uniquely situated to participate in CPR/DNR discussions.

To evaluate current practice of DNR orders in acute stroke, we studied 450 consecutive stroke patients admitted to a Toronto hospital.⁵ Of these, three patients received CPR and none of them survived hospital admission; 31% received DNR orders and 83% of those died. A "no resuscitation" decision was associated mainly with the severity of stroke (Canadian Neurological Scale¹⁷ scores less than 5.0), age more than 60 years, and type of stroke. As a result of this pilot study, we suggested provisional criteria⁵ for "no resuscitation" decisions.

Since "no resuscitate" decisions in acute stroke are associated with both medical uncertainty and inevitable plurality of values,¹⁸ we aimed to assess the agreement on the provisional criteria among physicians involved in management of patients with acute stroke to identify factors considered to be of prognostic significance and thus to develop recommendations for further studies and the use of DNR orders in acute stroke.

	Subjects and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
A multicenter evaluation of the provisional criteria was initiated among physicians of the Canadian and Western New York Stroke Consortiums. Participating physicians are the neurologists and a neurosurgeon who demonstrated their involvement in management of patients with acute stroke and conducting clinical trials at academic medical centers in Canada¹⁹ and New York State (see "Acknowledgments"). A modified Delphi process^{20 21} was used to accomplish a prospective peer review of the proposed criteria by the participants. An invitation letter, provisional criteria,⁵ and a standard questionnaire were sent to the Consortium members. Responses had to be received no later than scheduled deadlines. After the answers were analyzed, the definitions of the criteria were modified, and a new draft of the guidelines and a new questionnaire were developed by the group of principal investigators (A.V.A., P.M.P., E.M.M., and J.W.N.) and modified according to the participants' recommendations. Finally, the participants commented on the appropriateness of the proposed criteria for clinical use.

All 36 members of the Consortiums as listed on July 1, 1994, received invitations to participate in the study and standard questionnaires. The questions were formulated so that the participants would answer "yes" or "no." Agreement was considered significant when the probability value was less than .05 (z score) or when more than 67% of the reviewers answered similarly. The z score²² evaluates the significance of a single proportion with a null hypothesis of a 50/50 chance of "yes"/"no" answers among the observers. No repeated assessment of the reviewers' opinion was used, and therefore no further statistical tests were used. After each round of circulation of the proposed criteria and questionnaires, the participants received a synopsis of data indicating the degree of agreement achieved. Only the final draft of the disease-specific recommendations is presented here.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
Thirty-six invitations were mailed and twenty-six physicians responded (72%), comprising 16 Canadian and 10 US physicians. A one-page set of disease-specific recommendations for DNR orders in acute stroke were developed after three rounds of the study ("Appendix I"). The recommendations consisted of the definitions of clinical criteria for DNR orders and general statements regarding withholding CPR in patients with acute stroke.

Initially, 22 of 26 reviewers agreed with a one-page format chosen for the criteria (85%, P=.0002) (Table). During the first round, 17 of 26 reviewers considered the provisional criteria⁵ appropriate for clinical use (65%, P=.06, NS), and certain changes to the definitions of clinical criteria were recommended (see below). After three rounds of improving the criteria and definitions, six of those who initially considered the criteria inappropriate changed their opinion, and three reviewers did not change their opinion. Only two reviewers who first evaluated the criteria as appropriate then reconsidered their opinion. The final agreement on the appropriateness of the disease-specific criteria for clinical use was 81%, or 21 of 26 reviewers (P=.0008).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Synopsis of Data Obtained During the Three Rounds of the Consensus Development

During the first round, the participants were asked several questions regarding the general issues of "no resuscitation" decision making and management of patients with severe stroke (Table). Thus, instead of primary discussions of a DNR order and contrary to the principle of implied consent for CPR, 20 of 26 reviewers suggested that initial consent must be obtained for the use of CPR (77%, P=.003). Therefore, a DNR order is considered a secondary action after the decision not to perform CPR is made. Of 26 participants, 21 agreed that CPR does not alter the fatal outcome in severe stroke (81%, P=.0008), emphasizing that CPR may be used in patients with minor or brain stem stroke with no significant comorbidities (see "Appendix I"). Therefore, unless requested by patients or an appropriate surrogate according to patients' preferences, CPR should not be recommended as a treatment option in patients with severe stroke. The use of advanced cardiac life support and mechanical ventilation was not recommended in patients with severe stroke by 18 of 26 reviewers (69%, P<.03). Also, 18 reviewers agreed that the "no resuscitation" decision should be made irrespective of the patient's age (P<.03). According to 24 of 26 reviewers, a DNR order withholds CPR only, and the appropriateness of other treatments should be assessed on its own merits (92%, P=.00003). Although stroke is an unexpected and often irreversible event, warning signs (ie, transient ischemic attacks) are common. Since the major risk factor for stroke is stroke itself, advance directives should be encouraged in patients with warning signs of stroke or after nonfatal stroke, according to 18 of 26 reviewers (69%, P<.03).

During the first round, only 15 of 26 reviewers agreed that severe stroke and irreversible brain damage are sufficient grounds for a DNR order (58%, P=.2, NS), and they offered a number of suggestions to improve the definitions. Therefore, the second and third rounds were designed to achieve consensus on the definitions of the clinical criteria for DNR orders (see "Appendix I"). Thus, new definitions of severe stroke and life-threatening brain damage were suggested for review. Final agreement for the definition of severe stroke was achieved by 22 of 26 reviewers (88%, P=.00007). Nineteen of 26 reviewers agreed with the definition of life-threatening brain damage (73%, P<.01), and 24 of 26 reviewers agreed with the definition of significant comorbidities (92%, P=.00003).

Twenty-one reviewers recommended further consensus development involving neurosurgeons, neurocritical care specialists, and bioethicists (81%, P=.0008). Also, it was noted that currently available imaging data lack precision in quantifying inevitably fatal brain damage in hemispheric ischemic stroke and brain stem stroke. Overall, Canadian and US physicians had similar opinions when the agreement on the outlined issues was considered separately for each Consortium.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
The result of this study was a one-page set of disease-specific recommendations for DNR orders in acute stroke, developed to supplement general DNR policies during the first 2 weeks of stroke. The proposed clinical criteria for DNR orders reflect the factors associated with DNR decision making and mortality after stroke reported in previous studies.^{4 5 8 23 24}

Firm prognostic criteria for hypoxic-ischemic coma have been established.¹⁰ Our proposed recommendations set criteria that, according to physicians' experience, indicate fatal outcome despite life-sustaining interventions before the development of coma secondary to stroke. These disease-specific criteria for DNR orders were not designed as perfect predictors of mortality, but when present they should alert clinicians on the likely futile outcome of resuscitation.

The key concept behind these recommendations is that, unless requested by patients or appropriate surrogates, CPR or advanced cardiac life support including use of mechanical ventilation should not be initiated in patients who meet the proposed clinical criteria. This does require a rethinking of the methods used to inform and involve patients and families in decision making about CPR. The participants agreed that the "no resuscitation" decision should be made irrespective of the patient's age and be based on grave prognosis and "futility" of intervention. However, medical futility as a justification for a DNR order was inconsistently applied in a recent study,¹⁵ emphasizing that vague definitions of futility may contribute to this problem.¹⁶ A specific definition of futility must include evidence of no survivors after CPR.¹⁶ In the absence of a study designed to evaluate "quantitative futility"¹⁶ of CPR and mechanical ventilation in acute stroke, we attempted to develop definitions of clinical conditions associated with inevitably fatal stroke on the basis of currently existing outcome data.^{4 8 9 17 25 26 27 28 29 30 31} Furthermore, doctors should not have absolute power to withhold interventions regardless of the patient's wishes.¹⁶ We therefore indicated in the recommendations that, after the prognosis was established, the "no resuscitation" discussions should be held whenever possible among physician(s), the patient, and family or appropriate surrogates. Only after that may the DNR order be written in the chart. The inconsistency inherent to unilateral DNR orders^{15 16} may affect patients with severe stroke, since only 8% of these are capable of informed decision making.⁵ Also, 8% of those with impaired cognition did not have any relative or surrogate available at the time of a "no resuscitation" decision made by physicians.⁵ Therefore, a minority of acute stroke patients may require unilateral DNR orders that should be well grounded. We agree that medical education about futility and the DNR order must be improved, and a specific definition of futility must be used.¹⁶ Moreover, joint decision making satisfies the ethical principle of patient autonomy,¹⁶ and we suggest

	Acknowledgments

 
Dr Alexandrov was supported in part by a postgraduate fellowship from the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto. We wish to thank Drs Antonio Culebras, Stephen J. Phillips, and Peter A. Singer for thorough peer review and the improvements suggested to prepare the manuscript for its submission. The authors thank the participants listed below for their contribution of ideas and constructive criticisms.

	Footnotes

 
¹ Fatal outcome of ICH is associated with a volume of >60 mL on CT scans. Currently available data lack precision in quantifying imaging criteria and size of life-threatening hemispheric infarctions and infratentorial lesions.

² Deceased.

	Appendix I

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
Disease-Specific Criteria for Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Acute Stroke
These criteria supplement general DNR policies to aid the specific use of DNR orders in patients during the first 2 weeks of stroke.

Background
Patients suffering acute stroke are facing the irreversibility of the neuronal damage if treatment is delayed. Controversial clinical attitudes toward stroke are partly grounded in effective interventions to prevent death but as yet limited effectiveness of treatment of brain damage to reduce subsequent disability. The unexpectedness of stroke and difficulties with prognosis complicate decision making.

The early mortality rate following stroke is high mainly due to brain swelling and herniation during the first week and from systemic complications thereafter.

Consent should be obtained for the use of CPR and mechanical ventilation as a treatment option. A DNR order is a secondary action that occurs after the decision not to perform CPR.

Ethics
Physicians and nurses are primarily responsible for the quality of information concerning stroke prognosis and the way it is presented to the patient and family. The final decision about resuscitation should be made by an informed patient (when possible) or an appropriate surrogate. Acute stroke patients are often incapable of participating in discussions regarding CPR due to aphasia, dementia, and impaired consciousness, thus being unable to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of CPR. Therefore, the choice of an informed substitute increases the physician's responsibility. This decision must be made irrespective of the patient's age and according to the patient's expressed preferences or best interests (when preferences are not known).

Applicability and Institutional Issues
These criteria, suggested for patients with ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage, should be updated regularly and may be modified if new treatment strategies prove effective in severe stroke.

The criteria apply mainly to the acute phase of stroke (the first 2 weeks); general DNR policies are also applicable during and after this time.

The criteria are intended to supplement, not replace, existing DNR policies in institutions. Staff should be informed of the issues identified.

Team Issues and Management
Nurses should be informed of the prognosis and patient's preferences and best interests.

If the attending physician has doubts, it is prudent to wait and to obtain a second opinion from another physician.

A DNR order should not be interpreted as a decision to discontinue patient care and treatment. The appropriateness of any treatment and nutrition should be evaluated on its own merits.

General Considerations
Dying is a natural process. An intervention is futile if it prolongs dying and brings discomfort but no improvement (ie, if it does not alter the fatal outcome and is of no benefit). Such intervention may also be considered harmful since the risk of systemic complications of subacute stroke is high in severely disabled survivors.

Stroke is an unexpected and often irreversible event. However, warning signs (eg, transient ischemic attack) are common, and since the major risk factor for stroke is stroke itself, prior discussions and advance directives regarding the patient's preferences on resuscitation should be encouraged.

Unless requested, CPR and mechanical ventilation should not be recommended as a treatment option in patients with severe stroke since these are often futile or not in the best interests of these patients. CPR may be appropriate in patients with minor and brain stem strokes with no significant comorbidities.

Clinical Criteria for DNR Orders
A DNR order may be written any time that two of the following clinical criteria are present and the prognosis has become clear for and shared whenever possible between physician(s), patient, and family (or appropriate surrogate).

1. Severe Stroke
Clinically severe stroke produces persisting (more than 24 hours) and sometimes deteriorating neurological deficit, often with early impairment of consciousness leading to total dependency of the patient in activities of daily living. The patient must have little or no active movement on at least one side of the body, with either impaired consciousness, global aphasia, or lack of response indicating cognition (Glasgow Coma Scale score of <9, Canadian Neurological Scale score of <5.0).

2. Life-Threatening Brain Damage
Life-threatening brain damage is associated with brain stem compression caused by large intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), usually with intraventricular extension; large hemispheric infarction with midline shift; infratentorial strokes involving multiple levels in the brain stem; or cerebellar lesions.*

3. Significant Comorbidities
The following nonneurological conditions are important risk factors for death within the first month after stroke: pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, recent myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, and life-threatening arrhythmias. These comorbid factors should be considered part of expected consequences of severe stroke pointing to an increased likelihood of death in the subacute phase of stroke.

that this should be achieved whenever possible. The concept of implied consent for CPR is evolving now and will likely be replaced by the view that an informed consent should be obtained for the use of CPR.³²

Two rounds were necessary to achieve significant agreement on the clinical criteria for DNR orders that reflect current views on reliable predictors of early death after stroke. Several original studies were used to define severe stroke,^{8 17 25 26} life-threatening brain damage,^{8 26 27 28 29 30} and significant comorbidities.^{8 9 30 31} The criteria "severe stroke" and "life-threatening brain damage" identify patients with brain stem compression due to transtentorial herniation likely to lead to fatal deterioration. Further study³³ is underway to review previous imaging criteria for brain herniation^{34 35} and quantify lesion volume and midline shift producing irreversible brain stem compression particular to acute stroke.

In addition to general policies,^{36 37} disease-specific criteria have been developed, for example, for "locked-in" and persistent vegetative-state patients.^{38 39} Such disease-specific statements contain valuable information for both junior and senior medical staff because they summarize the current knowledge on the disease and its management, as well as provide detailed criteria on which to base both the clinical decision and the discussion with the family. These disease-specific guidelines, however, are not applicable to the group of patients addressed by the disease-specific criteria in the present study.

It is encouraging that there was no difference in opinion between the Canadian and US physicians on the clinical criteria for DNR orders and other questions in this study. In Canada, patients with acute stroke stay in the hospital far longer than in the United States because of placement problems, and the survivors of the acute phase of a severe stroke represent a large burden on the hospital budget.⁴⁰ However, the major determinants of costs of acute care are social (ie, availability of nursing homes) and not medical.⁴⁰ Therefore, prevention of inappropriate interventions may not only reduce the length of hospital stay in accord with present trends in managed care financing but, most importantly, it will be consistent with patients' best interests.⁴¹

There was a significant degree of agreement among the participants that these disease-specific criteria are appropriate for clinical use in the present format. However, to avoid the potential for the criteria to become a self-fulfilling prophecy or a "cookbook" of medicine, the reviewers recommended further consensus development and prospective studies involving neurosurgeons, neurocritical care specialists, and bioethicists. Furthermore, the present criteria should be reviewed periodically to accommodate new quantitative prognostic data (imaging and clinical) as well as therapies that are effective for treatment of patients with acute stroke.^{42 43}

In conclusion, these disease-specific criteria and recommendations for DNR orders in acute stroke are suggested not to replace but to supplement existing general DNR policies and management guidelines.⁴⁴ It is anticipated that the disease-specific criteria will facilitate informed decision making and stimulate further studies to refine prognostic data for rational prevention of unnecessary interventions in terminally ill patients with acute stroke.

	Appendix II

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 
Participants in a Multicenter Collaborative Group on the Disease-Specific Criteria for Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Acute Stroke
Members of the Canadian Stroke Consortium (CSC): Brian A. Anderson, MD, St Boniface Hospital, University of Winnipeg (Manitoba); Michel Beaudry, MD, Clinique Neurologique du Saguenay, Chicoutimi (Quebec); Andre Bellavance, MD, PhD, Hopital Charles LeMoyne, Universite de Sherbrooke, Greenfield Park (Quebec); Gilles Bernier, MD, Hopital Notre-Dame, Montreal (Quebec); Sandra E. Black, MD, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto (Ontario); Christopher F. Bladin, MBBS, FRACP, Stroke Research Unit, University of Toronto (Ontario); Robert Coté, MD, Hopital General de Montreal (Quebec); Robert Duke, MD, Hamilton Civic Hospitals, Hamilton (Ontario); David Howse, MD, Division of Neurology, Queens University, Kingston (Ontario); Keith Hoyte, MD, Calgary General Hospital, University of Calgary (Alberta); Andrew Kertesz, MD, St Joseph's Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London (Ontario); Louise-Helene Lebrun, MD, Hopital St Luc, Universite de Montreal (Quebec); Eric M. Meslin, PhD, Clinical Ethics Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, and Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto (Ontario); Gerard Mohr, MD, FRCS(C), Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal (Quebec); John W. Norris, MD, Stroke Research Unit, University of Toronto (Ontario), CSC Chairman; Stephen J. Phillips, MD, Victoria General Hospital, Dalhousie University, Halifax (Nova Scotia); and Frank L. Silver, MD, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto (Ontario).

Members of the Western New York Stroke Consortium (WNYSC):Andrei V. Alexandrov, MD, Stroke Program, Western New York Neuroscience Center, State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, Buffalo, Study Coordinator; Curtis Benesch, MD, Department of Neurology, University of Rochester (NY); Antonio Culebras, MD, VA Medical Center, SUNY at Syracuse; Linda Hershey, MD, VA Medical Center, SUNY at Buffalo; Frederick Munschauer, MD, Stroke Program, Buffalo General Hospital, SUNY at Buffalo; Bruce Naughton, MD, Buffalo General Hospital, SUNY at Buffalo; Walter A. Olszewski, MD, VA Medical Center, SUNY at Buffalo; Patrick M. Pullicino, MD, PhD, Stroke Program, Western New York Neuroscience Center, SUNY at Buffalo, WNYSC Chairman; M. Reza Samie, MD, Mercy Hospital, SUNY at Buffalo; and Bradley Traux, MD, Erie County Medical Center, SUNY at Buffalo.

Received July 5, 1995; revision received October 25, 1995; accepted October 25, 1995.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion Appendix I Appendix II References

 

1. Pellegrino ED. Ethics. JAMA. 1994;271:1668-1670. [Abstract]
2. Optimum care for hopelessly ill patients: a report of the Clinical Care Committee of the Massachusetts General Hospital. N Engl J Med. 1976;295:362-364. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Lanska DJ, Kryscio R. Geographic distribution of hospitalization rates, case fatality, and mortality from stroke in the United States. Neurology. 1994;44:1541-1550. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Bedell SE, Delbanco TL, Cook EF, Epstein FH. Survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:569-576. [Abstract]
5. Alexandrov AV, Bladin CF, Meslin EM, Norris JW. Do-not-resuscitate orders in acute stroke. Neurology. 1995;45:634-640. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Burtin P, Bollaert PE, Feldmann L, Nace L, Lelarge P, Bauer P, Larcan A. Prognosis of stroke patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 1994;20:32-36. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Grotta J, Pasteur W, Khwaja G, Hamel T, Fisher M, Ramirez A. Elective intubation for neurologic deterioration after stroke. Neurology. 1995;45:640-644. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Bounds JV, Wiebers DO, Whisnant JP, Okazaki H. Mechanisms and timing of deaths from cerebral infarction. Stroke. 1981;12:474-477. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Silver FL, Norris JW, Lewis AJ, Hachinski VC. Early mortality following stroke: a prospective review. Stroke. 1984;15:492-496. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Levy DE, Caronna JJ, Singer BH, Lapinski LH, Frydman H, Plum F. Predicting outcome from hypoxic-ischemic coma. JAMA. 1985;253:1420-1426. [Abstract]
11. Emergency Cardiac Care Committee and Subcommittees, American Heart Association. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, IV: special resuscitation situations. JAMA. 1992;268:2242-2250. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Wanzer SH, Adelstein SJ, Cranford RE, Federman DD, Hook ED, Moertel CG, Safar P, Stone A, Taussig HB, van Eys J. The physician's responsibility toward hopelessly ill patients. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:955-959. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Christakis NA, Asch DA. Biases in how physicians choose to withdraw life support. Lancet. 1993;342:642-646. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Bladin CF, Alexandrov AV, Smurawska LT. Should patients with stroke see a neurologist? Lancet. 1994;343:69. Letter.
15. Curtis JR, Park DR, Krone MR, Pearlman RA. Use of the medical futility rationale in do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders. JAMA. 1995;273:124-128. [Abstract]
16. Lo B, Alpers A. When is CPR futile? JAMA. 1995;273:156-158. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Coté R, Battista RN, Wolfson C, Boucher J, Adam J, Hachinski V. The Canadian Neurological Scale: validation and reliability assessment. Neurology. 1989;39:638-643. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Youngner SJ. Beyond DNR: fine-tuning end-of-life decision making. Neurology. 1995;45:615-616. [Free Full Text]
19. The Canadian Stroke Consortium. Can J Neurol Sci. 1994;21:174. Announcement.
20. Gordon TJ, Helmer O. Report on a Long-Range Forecasting Study. RAND Paper P-2982. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corp; 1964.
21. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984;74:979-983. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Kirkwood BR. Essentials of Medical Statistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1988:82-83.
23. King JJ, Doukas DJ, Gorenflo DW. Do not resuscitate orders for cerebrovascular accident patients. Stroke. 1992;23:1032-1033. Letter. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Kelly-Hayes M, Wolf PA, Kannel WB, Sytkowski P, D'Agostino RB, Gresham GE. Factors influencing survival and the need for institutionalization following stroke: the Framingham Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:415-418. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Bonita R, Beaglehole R. Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke. 1988;19:1497-1500. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Sacco RL, Foulkes MA, Mohr JP, Wolf PA, Hier DB, Price TR. Determinants of early recurrence of cerebral infarction. Stroke. 1989;20:983-989. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81-84. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Nadeau S, Jordan J, Mishra S. Clinical presentation as a guide to early prognosis in vertebrobasilar stroke. Stroke. 1992;23:165-170. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Broderick JP, Brott TG, Duldner JE, Tomsick T, Huster G. Volume of intracerebral hemorrhage: a powerful and easy-to-use predictor of 30-day mortality. Stroke. 1993;24:987-993. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Matsumoto N, Whisnant JP, Kunland LT, Okazaki O. Natural history of stroke in Rochester, Minnesota, 1955 through 1969: an extension of a previous study. Stroke. 1973;4:20-29. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Candelise L, Pinardi G, Morabito A. Mortality in acute stroke with atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 1991;22:169-174. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Jaffe AS, Landau WM. Clinical neuromythology XI. Death after death: the presumption of informed consent for cardiopulmonary resuscitation-ethical paradox and clinical conundrum. Neurology. 1993;43:2173-2178. [Free Full Text]
33. Pullicino PM, Alexandrov AV, Alexandrova NA, Smurawska LT, Norris JW. CT findings in fatal stroke. Neurology. 1995;45:A363. Abstract.
34. Ropper AH. Lateral displacement of the brain and level of consciousness in patients with acute hemispheral mass. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:953-958. [Abstract]
35. Reich JB, Sierra J, Camp W, Zanzonico P, Deck MDF, Plum F. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements and clinical changes accompanying transtentorial and foramen magnum herniation. Ann Neurol. 1993;33:159-170. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Guidelines for the appropriate use of do-not-resuscitate orders. JAMA. 1991;265:1868-1871. [Abstract]
37. Practice Guidelines. Resuscitation of the terminally ill. Can Med Assoc J. 1987;136:vol 2.
38. Ethics and Humanities Subcommittee, American Academy of Neurology. Position statement: certain aspects of the care and management of profoundly and irreversibly paralysed patients with retained consciousness and cognition. Neurology. 1993;43:222-223.
39. Executive Board, American Academy of Neurology. Position of the American Academy of Neurology on certain aspects of the care and management of the persistent vegetative state patient. Neurology. 1989;39:125-126. [Free Full Text]
40. Smurawska LT, Alexandrov AV, Bladin CF, Norris JW. Cost of acute stroke care in Toronto, Canada. Stroke. 1994;25:1628-1631. [Abstract]
41. Solomon NA, Glick HA, Russo CJ, Lee J, Schulman KA. Patient preferences for stroke outcomes. Stroke. 1994;25:1721-1725. [Abstract]
42. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581-1587. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Kay R, Wong KS, Yu YL, Chan YW, Tsoi TH, Ahuja AT, Chan FL, Fong KY, Law CB, Wong A, Woo J. Low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1588-1593. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Adams HP, Brott TG, Crowell RM, Furlan AJ, Gomez CR, Grotta J, Helgason CM, Marler JR, Woolson RF, Zivin JA, Feinberg W, Mayberg M. Guidelines for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 1994;25:1901-1914.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Broderick, S. Connolly, E. Feldmann, D. Hanley, C. Kase, D. Krieger, M. Mayberg, L. Morgenstern, C. S. Ogilvy, P. Vespa, et al. REPRINT: Guidelines for the Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Adults: 2007 Update: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council, High Blood Pressure Research Council, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes in Research Interdisciplinary Working Group: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists. Circulation, October 16, 2007; 116(16): e391 - e413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Dirks, L. W Niessen, P. J Koudstaal, C. L Franke, R. J van Oostenbrugge, D. W J Dippel, and the members of the Delphi panel on indications and Intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke: from trial exclusion criteria to clinical contraindications. An international Delphi study J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, July 1, 2007; 78(7): 685 - 689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Broderick, S. Connolly, E. Feldmann, D. Hanley, C. Kase, D. Krieger, M. Mayberg, L. Morgenstern, C. S. Ogilvy, P. Vespa, et al. Guidelines for the Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Adults: 2007 Update: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council, High Blood Pressure Research Council, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes in Research Interdisciplinary Working Group: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists. Stroke, June 1, 2007; 38(6): 2001 - 2023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-M. Hilden, P. Louhiala, M.-L. Honkasalo, and J. Palo Finnish Nurses' Views on End-of-Life Discussions and a Comparison with Physicians' Views Nursing Ethics, March 1, 2004; 11(2): 165 - 178. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. K. Rayens and E. J. Hahn Building Consensus Using the Policy Delphi Method Policy Politics Nursing Practice, November 1, 2000; 1(4): 308 - 315. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Bestue, J.-R. Ara, J. Martin, C. Iturriaga, A. Tejada, and M. Diringer Mechanical ventilation for ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage Neurology, June 1, 1999; 52(9): 1920 - 1920. [Full Text]

This Article Abstract Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alexandrov, A. V. Articles by Norris, J. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alexandrov, A. V. Articles by Norris, J. W.