-
Handbook of Clinical Neurology 2022Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic diseases, with a prevalence of 1% in the US population. Many people with epilepsy live normal lives, but are at... (Review)
Review
Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic diseases, with a prevalence of 1% in the US population. Many people with epilepsy live normal lives, but are at risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). This mysterious comorbidity of epilepsy causes premature death in 17%-50% of those with epilepsy. Most SUDEP occurs after a generalized seizure, and patients are typically found in bed in the prone position. Until recently, it was thought that SUDEP was due to cardiovascular failure, but patients who died while being monitored in hospital epilepsy units revealed that most SUDEP is due to postictal central apnea. Some cases may occur when seizures invade the amygdala and activate projections to the brainstem. Evidence suggests that the pathophysiology is linked to defects in the serotonin system and central CO chemoreception, and that there is considerable overlap with mechanisms thought to be involved in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Future work is needed to identify biomarkers for patients at highest risk, improve ascertainment, develop methods to alert caregivers when SUDEP is imminent, and find effective approaches to prevent these fatal events.
Topics: Brain Stem; Death, Sudden; Epilepsy; Humans; Seizures; Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy
PubMed: 36031303
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-91532-8.00012-4 -
BMJ Open Nov 2019Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR), or any related form of audit, is a systematic process used to prevent future maternal and perinatal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR), or any related form of audit, is a systematic process used to prevent future maternal and perinatal deaths. While the existence of MPDSR policies is routinely measured, measurement and understanding of policy implementation has lagged behind. In this paper, we present a theory-based conceptual framework for understanding MPDSR implementation as well as a scoping review protocol to understand factors influencing MPDSR implementation in low/ middle-income countries (LMIC).
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will inform the development of a theory-based conceptual framework for MPDSR implementation. The methodology for the scoping review will be guided by an adapted Arksey and O'Malley approach. Documents will include published and grey literature sourced from electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, JSTOR, LILACS), the WHO Library, Maternal Death Surveillance and Response Action Network, Google, the reference lists of key studies and key experts. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full studies for inclusion. All discrepancies will be resolved by an independent third party. We will include studies published in English from 2004 to July 2018 that present results on factors influencing implementation of MPDSR, or any related form. Qualitative content and thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data according to the theory-based conceptual framework. Stakeholders will be consulted at various stages of the process.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
The scoping review will synthesise implementation factors relating to MPDSR in LMIC as described in the literature. This review will contribute to the work of the Countdown to 2030 Drivers Group, which seeks to explore key contextual drivers for equitable and effective coverage of maternal and child health interventions. Ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through various channels, including a peer-reviewed publication.
Topics: Adult; Clinical Audit; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Implementation Science; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Death; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy
PubMed: 31780590
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031328 -
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in... Oct 2021Brain death has been accepted worldwide medically and legally as the biological state of death of the organism. Nevertheless, the literature has described persistent... (Review)
Review
Brain death has been accepted worldwide medically and legally as the biological state of death of the organism. Nevertheless, the literature has described persistent problems with this acceptance ever since brain death was described. Many of these problems are not widely known or properly understood by much of the medical community. Here we aim to clarify these issues, based on the two intractable problems in the brain death debates. First, the metaphysical problem: there is no reason that withstands critical scrutiny to believe that BD is the state of biological death of the human organism. Second, the epistemic problem: there is no way currently to diagnose the state of BD, the irreversible loss of all brain functions, using clinical tests and ancillary tests, given potential confounders to testing. We discuss these problems and their main objections and conclude that these problems are intractable in that there has been no acceptable solution offered other than bare assertions of an 'operational definition' of death. We present possible ways to move forward that accept both the metaphysical problem - that BD is not biological death of the human organism - and the epistemic problem - that as currently diagnosed, BD is a devastating neurological state where recovery of sentience is very unlikely, but not a confirmed state of irreversible loss of all [critical] brain functions. We argue that the best solution is to abandon the dead donor rule, thus allowing vital organ donation from patients currently diagnosed as BD, assuming appropriate changes are made to the consent process and to laws about killing.
Topics: Brain Death; Death; Humans; Organ Transplantation; Tissue Donors; Tissue and Organ Procurement
PubMed: 34625089
DOI: 10.1186/s13010-021-00107-9 -
Health Policy and Planning Jun 2021Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR), or any form of maternal and/or perinatal death review or audit, aims to improve health services and... (Review)
Review
Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR), or any form of maternal and/or perinatal death review or audit, aims to improve health services and pre-empt future maternal and perinatal deaths. With expansion of MPDSR across low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), we conducted a scoping review to identify and describe implementation factors and their interactions. The review adapted an implementation framework with four domains (intervention, individual, inner and outer settings) and three cross-cutting health systems lenses (service delivery, societal and systems). Literature was sourced from six electronic databases, online searches and key experts. Selection criteria included studies from LMIC published in English from 2004 to July 2018 detailing factors influencing implementation of MPDSR, or any related form of MPDSR. After a systematic screening process, data for identified records were extracted and analysed through content and thematic analysis. Of 1027 studies screened, the review focuses on 58 studies from 24 countries, primarily in Africa, that are mainly qualitative or mixed methods. The literature mostly examines implementation factors related to MPDSR as an intervention, and to its inner and outer setting, with less attention to the individuals involved. From a health systems perspective, almost half the literature focuses on the tangible inputs addressed by the service delivery lens, though these are often measured inadequately or through incomparable ways. Though less studied, the societal and health system factors show that people and their relationships, motivations, implementation climate and ability to communicate influence implementation processes; yet their subjective experiences and relationships are inadequately explored. MPDSR implementation contributes to accountability and benefits from a culture of learning, continuous improvement and accountability, but few have studied the complex interplay and change dynamics involved. Better understanding MPDSR will require more research using health policy and systems approaches, including the use of implementation frameworks.
Topics: Africa; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Maternal Death; Maternal Mortality; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33712840
DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czab011 -
Journal of Patient Safety Jun 2023This study aimed to depict the characteristics, injury outcomes, and payment of obstetric malpractice lawsuits to better understand the medicolegal burden in obstetrics... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to depict the characteristics, injury outcomes, and payment of obstetric malpractice lawsuits to better understand the medicolegal burden in obstetrics and categorize the causes of obstetric malpractice lawsuits using The National Health Service Litigation Authority coding taxonomy for further quality improvement in maternity care.
METHODS
We reviewed and retrieved key information on court records of legal trials from China Judgment Online between 2013 and 2021.
RESULTS
A total of 3441 obstetric malpractice lawsuits successfully claimed were reviewed in this study, with a total indemnity payment of $139,875,375. After peaking in 2017, the number of obstetric malpractice claims begins to decline. Of the 2424 hospitals that were sued, 8.3% (201/2424) were referred to as "repeat defendant" because they were involved in multiple lawsuits. Death and injury were the outcomes in 53.4% and 46.6% of the cases, respectively. The most common outcome type was neonatal death, which made up 29.8% of all cases. The median indemnity payment for death was higher compared with injury ( P < 0.05). In terms of detailed injury outcomes, the major neonatal injury had higher median indemnity payments than neonatal death and fetal death ( P < 0.05). The median indemnity payment of the major maternal injury was higher than that of maternal death ( P < 0.05). The leading causes of obstetric malpractice were the management of birth complications and adverse events (23.3%), management of labor (14.4%), career decision making (13.7%), fetal surveillance (11.0%), and cesarean section management (9.5%). The cause for 8.7% of cases was high payment (≥$100, 000). As indicated by the results of the multivariate analysis, the hospitals in the midland of China (odds ratio [OR], 0.476; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.348-0.651), the hospitals in the west of China (OR, 0.523; 95% CI, 0.357-0.767), and the secondary hospitals (OR, 0.587; 95% CI, 0.356-0.967) had lower risks of high payment. Hospitals with ultimate liability (OR, 9.695; 95% CI, 4.072-23.803), full liability (OR, 16.442; 95% CI, 6.231-43.391), major neonatal injury (OR, 12.326; 95% CI, 5.836-26.033), major maternal injury (OR, 20.885; 95% CI, 7.929-55.011), maternal death (OR, 18.783; 95% CI, 8.887-39.697), maternal death with child injury (OR, 54.682; 95% CI, 10.900-274.319), maternal injury with child death (OR, 6.935; 95% CI, 2.773-17.344), and deaths of both mother and child (OR, 12.770; 95% CI, 5.136-31.754) had higher risks of high payment. In the causative domain, only anesthetics had a higher risk of high payment (OR, 5.605; 95% CI, 1.347-23.320), but anesthetic-related lawsuits made up just 1.4% of all cases.
CONCLUSIONS
The healthcare systems had to pay a significant amount as a result of obstetric malpractice lawsuits. Greater efforts are required to minimize serious injury outcomes and improve obstetric quality in the risky domains.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Child; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Obstetrics; Maternal Death; Cesarean Section; Perinatal Death; State Medicine; Maternal Health Services; Malpractice
PubMed: 36849439
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001112 -
Medicine Apr 2023Sudden death is a leading cause of deaths nationally. Definitions of sudden death vary greatly, resulting in imprecise estimates of its frequency and incomplete...
Sudden death is a leading cause of deaths nationally. Definitions of sudden death vary greatly, resulting in imprecise estimates of its frequency and incomplete knowledge of its risk factors. The degree to which time-based and coronary artery disease (CAD) criteria impacts estimates of sudden death frequency and risk factors is unknown. Here, we apply these criteria to a registry of all-cause sudden death to assess its impact on sudden death frequency and risk factors. The sudden unexpected death in North Carolina (SUDDEN) project is a registry of out of-hospital, adjudicated, sudden unexpected deaths attended by Emergency Medical Services. Deaths were not excluded by time since last seen or alive or by prior symptoms or diagnosis of CAD. Common criteria for sudden death based on time since last seen alive (both 24 hours and 1 hour) and prior diagnosis of CAD were applied to the SUDDEN case registry. The proportion of cases satisfying each of the 4 criteria was calculated. Characteristics of victims within each restrictive set of criteria were measured and compared to the SUDDEN registry. There were 296 qualifying sudden deaths. Application of 24 hour and 1 hour timing criteria compared to no timing criteria reduced cases by 25.0% and 69.6%, respectively. Addition of CAD criteria to each timing criterion further reduced qualifying cases, for a total reduction of 81.8% and 90.5%, respectively. However, characteristics among victims meeting restrictive criteria remained similar to the unrestricted population. Timing and CAD criteria dramatically reduces estimates of the number of sudden deaths without significantly impacting victim characteristics.
Topics: Humans; Death, Sudden; Risk Factors; Coronary Artery Disease; North Carolina; Emergency Medical Services; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Cause of Death
PubMed: 37083784
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033029 -
BMC Public Health Dec 2020We aim to study the profile, and pathological characteristics of sudden death in young in purpose of recommendations for prevention. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We aim to study the profile, and pathological characteristics of sudden death in young in purpose of recommendations for prevention.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective cohort study using autopsy data from the Department of Forensic Medicine of Monastir (Tunisia). A review of all autopsies performed for 28 years was done (August 1990 to December 2018). In each case, clinical information, and circumstances of death were obtained. A complete forensic autopsy and histological, and toxicological investigations were performed. We have included all sudden death in persons aged between 18 and 35 years.
RESULTS
We collected 137 cases of sudden death during the studied period. The mean age of the studied population was 26.47 years. Almost 72% deaths were classified as cardiac death, and was due to ischemic heart disease in 32.32%. Sudden death was attributed to a pleuropulmonary cause in 7.4%, an abdominal cause in 6%, and from a neurological origin in 4.5%. The cause of sudden death in this group was not established by 9.5%.
CONCLUSION
In this series, sudden death in young adults occurs mainly in a smoking male, aged between 18 and 24 years old, occurring at rest, in the morning, and early in the week. It is more common, especially in summer. Sudden death is most often the first manifestation of pathologies, especially unsuspected heart diseases. The predominance of cardiovascular causes is the common denominator of almost all studies reported in the literature. Our findings suggest that prevention of sudden death among young adults under the age of 35 years should also focus on evaluation for causes not associated with structural heart disease.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Autopsy; Cause of Death; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Heart Diseases; Humans; Male; Retrospective Studies; Tunisia; Young Adult
PubMed: 33334328
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-10012-z -
Pediatric Annals Jul 2023
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Sleep; Sudden Infant Death
PubMed: 37427967
DOI: 10.3928/19382359-20230609-01 -
Pediatric Annals Aug 2022
Topics: Child; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Infant; Infant Care; Sleep; Sudden Infant Death
PubMed: 35938896
DOI: 10.3928/19382359-20220712-01 -
BMC Public Health Jan 2024Causes of death other than COVID-19 seem to contribute significantly to the excess mortality observed during the 2020-2022 pandemic. In this study, we explore changes in...
BACKGROUND
Causes of death other than COVID-19 seem to contribute significantly to the excess mortality observed during the 2020-2022 pandemic. In this study, we explore changes in non-COVID-19 causes of death in Norway during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 to December 2022.
METHODS
We performed a population-based cross-sectional study on data from the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. All recorded deaths from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2022 were included. The main outcome measures were the number of deaths and age-standardised death rate (ASMR) per 100000 population from the major cause of death groups in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The predicted number of deaths and ASMRs were forecasted with a 95% prediction interval constructed from a general linear regression model based on the corresponding number of deaths and rates from the preceding ten prepandemic years (2010-2019). We also examined whether there were deviations from expected seasonality in the pandemic period based on prepandemic monthly data from 2010-2019. The cumulative number of deaths and ASMR were estimated based on monthly mortality data.
RESULTS
There was significant excess mortality (number of deaths) in 2021 and 2022 for all causes (3.7% and 14.5%), for cardiovascular diseases (14.3% and 22.0%), and for malignant tumours in 2022 (3.5%). In terms of ASMR, there was excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 for all causes (2.9% and 13.7%), and for cardiovascular diseases (16.0% and 25,8%). ASMR was higher than predicted in 2022 for malignant tumours (2.3%). There were fewer deaths than predicted from respiratory diseases (except COVID-19) in 2020 and 2021, and from dementia in 2021 and 2022. From March 2020 to December 2022, there were cumulatively 3754 (ASMR 83.8) more non-COVID-19 deaths than predicted, of which 3453 (ASMR: 79.6) were excess deaths from cardiovascular disease, 509 (ASMR 4.0) from malignant tumours. Mortality was lower than predicted for respiratory diseases (-1889 (ASMR: -44.3)), and dementia (-530 (ASMR -18.5)).
CONCLUSIONS
There was considerable excess non-COVID-19 mortality in Norway from March 2020 until December 2022, mainly due to excess cardiovascular deaths. For respiratory diseases and dementia, mortality was lower than predicted.
Topics: Humans; Female; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cross-Sectional Studies; Pandemics; Perinatal Death; COVID-19; Norway; Neoplasms; Dementia
PubMed: 38254068
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-17515-5