Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35415612›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2022

Predicting Time to Death After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Measures Using Vital Sign Variability: Derivation and Validation.

Nathan B Scales, Christophe L Herry, Amanda van Beinum, Melanie L Hogue, Laura Hornby, Jason Shahin, Sonny Dhanani, Andrew J E Seely

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Implementation of a controlled DCD program in Western Austria - key considerations and insights.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Knowledge gaps in the definition and determination of death.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nathan B ScalesDynamical Analysis Laboratory, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Christophe L HerryDynamical Analysis Laboratory, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Amanda van BeinumChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Melanie L HogueChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Laura HornbyChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jason ShahinTranslational Research in Respiratory Diseases Program, McGill University Health Centre and Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Sonny DhananiChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Andrew J E SeelyDynamical Analysis Laboratory, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To develop a predictive model using vital sign (heart rate and arterial blood pressure) variability to predict time to death after withdrawal of life-supporting measures.

designRetrospective analysis of observational data prospectively collected as part of the Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy study between May 1, 2014, and May 1, 2018.

settingAdult ICU. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the ICU with a planned withdrawal of life-supporting measures and an expectation of imminent death.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsVital sign waveforms and clinical data were prospectively collected from 429 patients enrolled from 20 ICUs across Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands. Vital sign variability metrics were calculated during the hour prior to withdrawal. Patients were randomly assigned to the derivation cohort (288 patients) or the validation cohort (141 patients), of which 103 and 54, respectively, were eligible for organ donation after circulatory death. Random survival forest models were developed to predict the probability of death within 30, 60, and 120 minutes following withdrawal using variability metrics, features from existing clinical models, and/or the physician's prediction of rapid death. A model employing variability metrics alone performed similarly to a model employing clinical features, whereas the combination of variability, clinical features, and physician's prediction achieved the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of all models at 0.78 (0.7-0.86), 0.79 (0.71-0.87), and 0.8 (0.72-0.88) for 30-, 60- and 120-minute predictions, respectively.

conclusionsMachine learning models of vital sign variability data before withdrawal of life-sustaining measures, combined with clinical features and the physician's prediction, are useful to predict time to death. The impact of providing this information for decision support for organ donation merits further investigation.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemsdonor selectionmachine learningorgan donationorgan transplantationvital signs

Identifiers

PMID35415612
PMCPMC8994079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.