Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39407075›Full record

ReviewNeurocritical care2025

Delayed Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment in Disorders of Consciousness: Practical and Theoretical Considerations.

Aaron Williams, Geoffrey D Bass, Stephen Hampton, Rachel Klinedinst, Joseph T Giacino, David Fischer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors.

Aaron WilliamsDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. aaron.williams@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1157-2536
Geoffrey D BassDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Stephen HamptonDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rachel KlinedinstDivision of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joseph T GiacinoDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
David FischerDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

A functional brain network to detect and predict consciousness recoveryK23NS136745 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI David Jacobson Fischer · 2025 to 2026
$440k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS136745
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disorders of consciousness (DoC) resulting from severe acute brain injuries may prompt clinicians and surrogate decision makers to consider withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) if the neurologic prognosis is poor. Recent guidelines suggest, however, that clinicians should avoid definitively concluding a poor prognosis prior to 28 days post injury, as patients may demonstrate neurologic recovery outside the acute time period. This practice may increase the frequency with which clinicians consider the option of delayed WLST (D-WLST), namely, WLST that would occur after hospital discharge, if the patient's recovery trajectory ultimately proves inconsistent with an acceptable quality of life. However acute care clinicians are often uncertain about what D-WLST entails and therefore find it difficult to properly counsel surrogates about this option. Here, we describe practical and theoretical considerations relevant to D-WLST. We first identify post-acute-care facilities to which patients with DoC are likely to be discharged and where D-WLST may be considered. Second, we describe how clinicians and surrogates may determine the appropriate timing of D-WLST. Third, we outline how D-WLST is practically implemented. And finally, we discuss psychosocial barriers to D-WLST, including the regret paradox, in which surrogates of patients who do not recover to meet preestablished goals frequently choose not to ultimately pursue D-WLST. Together, these practical, logistic, and psychosocial factors must be considered when potentially deferring WLST to the post-acute-care setting to optimize neurologic recovery for patients, avoid prolonged undue suffering, and promote informed and shared decision-making between clinicians and surrogates.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesClinical Decision-MakingConsciousness DisordersLife Support CareWithholding TreatmentHumansTime FactorsAcute brain injuryDisorder of consciousnessLife support carePrognostic factorsWithdrawing care

Identifiers

PMID39407075
PMCPMC12137379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.