Clinicians’ approach to predicting post-cardiac arrest outcomes for patients enrolled in a United States clinical trial

Abstract

PurposePerceived poor prognosis can lead to withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (WLST) in patients who might otherwise recover. We characterized clinicians’ approach to post-arrest prognostication in a multicenter clinical trial. MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians who treated a comatose post-cardiac arrest patient enrolled in the Influence of Cooling Duration on Efficacy in Cardiac Arrest Patients (ICECAP) trial (NCT04217551). Two authors independently analyzed each interview using inductive and deductive coding. The clinician reported how they arrived at a prognosis for the specific patient. We summarized the frequency with which clinicians reported using objective diagnostics to formulate their prognosis, and compared the reported approaches to established guidelines. Each respondent provided demographic information and described local neuroprognostication practices. ResultsWe interviewed 30 clinicians at 19 US hospitals. Most claimed adherence to local hospital neuroprognostication protocols (n = 19). Prognostication led to WLST for perceived poor neurological prognosis in 15/30 patients, of whom most showed inconsistencies with guidelines or trial recommendations, respectively. In 10/15 WLST cases, clinicians reported relying on multimodal testing. A prevalent theme was the use of “clinical gestalt,” defined as prognosticating based on a patient's overall appearance or a subjective impression in the absence of objective data. Many clinicians (21/30) reported using clinical gestalt for initial prognostication, with 9/21 expressing high confidence initially. ConclusionClinicians in our study state they follow neuroprognostication guidelines in general but often do not do so in actual practice. They reported clinical gestalt frequently informed early, highly confident prognostic judgments, and few objective tests changed initial impressions. Subjective prognostication may undermine well-designed trials.