The research team, led by Justyna Czekajewska of the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities at Poznan University of Medical Sciences, together with Dariusz Walkowiak, Anna Jelińska and Jan Domaradzki, used a self-administered, anonymous pen-and-paper questionnaire. Their goal was to map how these clinicians think about death in general, how they understand the concept of brain death, and how confident they feel about the diagnostic criteria used to establish it. The topic matters far beyond Poland. Brain death determination underpins organ donation programs worldwide, and nurses and midwives are often the professionals who spend the most time with patients and families confronting the reality of catastrophic brain injury.

On the fundamental nature of death, the respondents were largely aligned. A commanding majority, 90.4 percent, viewed death as a final phenomenon characterised by the irreversible and final loss of life. Even more tellingly, 78.8 percent agreed that the understanding of death is shaped by factors beyond medical criteria, an acknowledgment that culture, religion, philosophy and personal experience all colour how clinicians interpret the moment life ends. Death, in other words, is not seen purely as a biological event with a clean technical definition; it is also a human and social one, and the nurses and midwives surveyed were acutely aware of that duality.

When the questions turned specifically to brain death, the picture became more complicated. On the surface, support for the medical consensus looked strong: 82.5 percent of participants said they accepted the medical definition of brain death. But the agreement fractured as soon as the survey probed deeper. Nearly one in four respondents, 23.8 percent, agreed that brain death is not the same as human death, a position that runs directly counter to the legal and medical framework in most countries, including Poland, where irreversible cessation of brain function is what legally constitutes death. And in the analysed subgroups, roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of respondents indicated that a brain-dead patient should not be treated as dead.

That inconsistency is the study’s most provocative finding. How can most clinicians accept the definition of brain death while simultaneously believing that a brain-dead patient should not be treated as dead? The authors suggest the answer lies in the layered nature of the concept. Clinicians may intellectually endorse the neurological standard, which declares death when the brain has irreversibly lost all function, while emotionally and intuitively continuing to perceive a warm, breathing, beating-heart patient as alive. This dissonance is not unique to Poland; international literature has long documented similar ambivalence among health professionals, but the new survey quantifies it precisely in a group of practising nurses and midwives pursuing advanced degrees.

Doubts extended to the diagnostic machinery itself. Brain death is not diagnosed casually; it requires a rigorous clinical examination, testing of brainstem reflexes, an apnoea test to confirm the absence of spontaneous breathing, and in some settings confirmatory tools such as electroencephalography, or EEG, which measures electrical activity in the brain. Yet 45.0 percent of the surveyed nurses and midwives were uncertain whether the existing diagnostic criteria are insufficient, and a clear majority, 60.9 percent, agreed that more accurate diagnostic tests are needed. In other words, even among trained clinicians, confidence in the current diagnostic toolkit is far from universal, and a substantial share believes the technology and protocols should be improved.

The survey also revealed that attitudes were not distributed randomly. Religiosity, political orientation, professional activity and place of residence were all associated with differences in response patterns for selected attitudes towards death and brain death, although the authors note that these associations varied across individual statements rather than forming a single uniform pattern. This heterogeneity matters for educators and policymakers: it suggests that no single intervention will reach all clinicians equally, and that personal worldview, professional context and geographic background all shape how the concept of brain death is received and internalised.

The study was conducted with appropriate ethical safeguards. It followed the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Poznan University of Medical Sciences Bioethics Committee, with approval KB-07/24 granted on 3 January 2024. All participating students signed an informed written consent form before completing the survey. The researchers received no external funding for the work, and the authors declared no competing interests. The article was published open access on 5 October 2026, having been received in December 2024 and accepted at the end of September 2026, and it is citable under the DOI 10.1186/s12909-026-10530-1.

Why do these findings resonate so widely? Because brain death sits at the intersection of medicine, law, ethics and religion, and because the stakes are extraordinarily high. A declaration of brain death allows withdrawal of ventilatory support and, in many cases, opens the door to organ donation, where a beating-heart donor with a dead brain is the ideal source of transplantable organs. If the clinicians caring for such patients harbour private doubts about whether the patient is truly dead, those doubts can ripple outward, affecting communication with grieving families, trust in the donation system, and even the willingness of the public to register as donors. The survey’s respondents, as practising professionals, are precisely the people whose convictions families encounter first.

The authors’ conclusion is measured but pointed. Although most participating nurses and midwives accepted the medical definition of brain death, some expressed reservations or uncertainty about its equivalence with human death, its implications, and selected diagnostic issues. The findings, they write, identify areas of agreement, uncertainty and variation that can inform nursing and midwifery education. Their recommendation is clear: curricula should include explicit, rigorous teaching on brain death and its diagnostic criteria, alongside opportunities to discuss the ethical and thanatological, that is, death-related, dimensions of the topic. Preparing students for the clinical and emotional challenges of brain death, they argue, is not optional but essential. The broader lesson for medicine is uncomfortable but valuable: a definition can be legally settled and scientifically robust, and yet still contested in the minds of the professionals who must apply it. Closing that gap will require more than protocols; it will require education that treats death not only as a diagnostic event, but as the profound human question it has always been.

Subject of Research: Attitudes of Polish nurses and midwives towards death, brain death and its diagnostic criteria

Article Title: Polish nurses’ and midwives’ attitudes towards death, the definition of brain death and its diagnostic criteria: a questionnaire survey among master’s students

Article References: Czekajewska, J., Walkowiak, D., Jelińska, A., & Domaradzki, J. (2026). Polish nurses’ and midwives’ attitudes towards death, the definition of brain death and its diagnostic criteria: a questionnaire survey among master’s students. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10530-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10530-1

Keywords: brain death, nurses, midwives, diagnostic criteria, medical education, death attitudes, Poland, organ donation, EEG, religiosity, thanatology, clinical practice

The impetus for the statement was a 2025 survey of Neurocritical Care Society members that examined their experiences and attitudes surrounding organ donation. The survey revealed significant gaps in education among treatment teams about the donation process, along with opportunities to improve palliative interventions after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in patients who might become donation after cardiac death donors—cases where death is determined by the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function rather than by neurologic criteria. Respondents also flagged a cluster of ethical sore points: blurred boundaries between caring for the patient and caring for the organs, worries about transparency, empathy, and cultural sensitivity in how organ procurement organizations communicate with surrogate decision-makers, and unresolved questions about the ethics of first-person authorization, in which a donor’s prior registered consent supersedes family objections.

In response, the society’s Ethics Committee constructed a document that is part education, part ethical framework. Members were given the chance to comment on a draft between April 6 and 19, 2026, before the final statement was published on September 3, 2026. The statement takes the form of an informal narrative review of the literature pertinent to end-of-life care of potential donors, paired with practical guidance on three thorny areas: the legal definitions of death, first-person authorization, and collaborative communication, along with the management of potential conflicts of interest that inevitably arise when transplantation goals intersect with terminal care.

At the heart of the document lies a technical distinction that is easy to state but hard to operationalize: death determined by neurologic criteria, commonly called brain death, versus death determined by circulatory-respiratory criteria. Donation after brain death, in which organs are recovered after the donor has been declared dead by neurologic standards while the heart still beats, is well established. Donation after circulatory death is more ethically fraught, because it follows the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and the cessation of circulation. Timing is everything—organs deteriorate rapidly without blood flow, yet death must be declared before any procurement begins, in keeping with the dead donor rule, the foundational ethical principle that vital organs may only be removed from patients who are already dead. The statement situates donation after circulatory death within this legal and moral architecture, drawing on the Uniform Determination of Death Act, the 1981 President’s Commission report that established the dual standard for determining death in the United States, and the World Brain Death Project’s international consensus framework.

First-person authorization receives particularly close scrutiny. Under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, an individual’s documented decision to donate—registered through a department of motor vehicles or a donor registry—is legally binding, much like a will. Yet surveys show that families sometimes override a loved one’s registered consent, and clinicians report discomfort when a surrogate’s objections clash with the deceased’s explicit wishes. UK research has identified factors that triple the likelihood of families overriding first-person consent, and litigation in several American states has tested where legal authority truly rests. The statement’s guidance navigates this tension between legal gift law and the human reality of grieving families, acknowledging the ethical literature that questions whether registration practices fully honor autonomy while also recognizing that honoring a donor’s prior choice respects the person the patient once was.

Communication emerges as another central pillar. Studies cited in the statement show that the way death is communicated, the setting in which donation is discussed, and whether families feel supported rather than pressured all shape both consent outcomes and bereavement. Research on grief symptoms in relatives who experienced donation requests in the ICU, on the impact of in-person versus telephone approaches by procurement coordinators, and on family experiences after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in Canada all point in the same direction: trust is built through early, empathetic, decoupled conversations in which the treatment team discusses prognosis and goals of care separately from any donation discussion, with organ procurement organizations engaged only after the decision to withdraw therapy has been made. Simulation-based communication training for clinicians and structured collaborative models between ICUs and donation agencies are highlighted as proven ways to raise the quality of these conversations.

The statement also addresses palliative care within the donation pathway, an area the 2025 survey identified as ripe for improvement. When life-sustaining therapy is withdrawn in anticipation of circulatory death, the patient must receive optimal symptom management—analgesia and sedation guided by the principle of double effect—while the donation team watches the clock. Predictive tools, from the University of Wisconsin evaluation tool to modern machine-learning models that estimate time to asystole, now allow clinicians to counsel families realistically about whether donation is likely to be feasible, reducing the harm of futile procurements in which death does not come quickly enough for organs to remain viable. The growing use of donor care units, dedicated facilities where potential donors are managed after authorization, represents a structural innovation aimed at improving organ quality, though it raises fresh questions about geographic access and the optics of moving a dying patient.

Conflicts of interest receive candid treatment. The document acknowledges the moral distress reported by anesthesiologists, nurses, and intensivists who participate in donation processes, and the professional tensions documented in a 2025 systematic review of ethical attitudes toward circulatory death donation in ICUs. It points to mechanisms such as the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s misconduct reporting system and the decoupling of donation advocacy from bedside care as safeguards. The legacy of this concern stretches back decades—ethicists were debating the problems of procurement as early as 1964—but the current statement treats these tensions as manageable through clear role separation, transparency, and institutional ethics support rather than as reasons to abandon donation altogether.

The timing of the statement is notable. Demand for transplanted organs continues to outstrip supply worldwide, with chronic kidney disease alone imposing an enormous global burden, while xenotransplantation of genetically engineered pig organs, organ bioprinting, and regenerative medicine hover on the clinical horizon. Against that backdrop, the integrity of the deceased donation pathway—its legal definitions, its consent practices, its communication standards—matters more than ever. Recent congressional scrutiny of the organ procurement system, racial and ethnic disparities in donor referral, and contested cases involving unrepresented patients all underscore that public trust in donation is conditional. By codifying ethical guidance grounded in the lived experience of neurointensivists, the Neurocritical Care Society has produced a document intended not merely to increase the supply of organs, but to ensure that every step toward procurement is taken only after the patient has been fully cared for, fully honored, and fully dead according to law.

Subject of Research: Ethical guidance and education for organ donation at the end-of-life in neurocritical care

Article Title: Education and Ethical Guidance for Organ Donation at the End-of-Life: An Ethical Guidance Statement from the Neurocritical Care Society

Article References: Reynolds, A. S., Jaffa, M. N., McHugh, D., Babi, M. A., Cappucci, S., Condie, C., Durrant, J., Gandee, R., Lim-Hing, K., Runco, A., & Lewis, A. (2026). Education and Ethical Guidance for Organ Donation at the End-of-Life: An Ethical Guidance Statement from the Neurocritical Care Society. Neurocritical Care. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-026-02619-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12028-026-02619-8

Keywords: organ donation, neurocritical care, brain death, donation after circulatory death, medical ethics, end-of-life care, first-person authorization, organ procurement organizations, dead donor rule, palliative care, withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy, surrogate decision-making

The research, drawn from the Japan Comprehensive Process for End-of-Life Care and Organ Donation after Brain Death, or J-RESPECT, cohort, analyzed 204 brain-dead organ donors across 16 tertiary emergency and critical care centers between July 2010 and December 2023. These cases represented 21.8 percent of all brain-dead organ donations nationwide during the study period, making the dataset an unusually comprehensive window into real-world Japanese donor management. The findings were published in the journal Neurocritical Care by a team led by Tetsuya Yumoto of Okayama University, together with the J-RESPECT study group.

The physiological challenge that the study addresses is formidable. Brain death unleashes a cascade of devastating disturbances throughout the body: autonomic storm, hemodynamic collapse, hormonal deficiencies, and systemic inflammation. The loss of hypothalamic and pituitary function frequently triggers diabetes insipidus, in which the kidneys excrete enormous volumes of dilute urine, destabilizing blood pressure and fluid balance. A Korean nationwide study cited by the authors reported that cardiac arrest strikes 22.2 percent of donors during the brain death determination process itself. Every episode of cardiovascular instability threatens the viability of organs that might otherwise save lives downstream.

To combat this storm, intensivists around the world routinely deploy hormone replacement therapy, most commonly vasopressin to control diabetes insipidus and support blood pressure, and corticosteroids to stabilize hemodynamics and blunt the inflammatory response. Yet the evidence base for both practices has been surprisingly thin. A previous meta-analysis concluded that existing clinical evidence was insufficient to confirm or refute whether corticosteroids improve donor or recipient outcomes, and observational studies of vasopressin have generally evaluated the drug in isolation rather than alongside the other therapies donors typically receive.

The Japanese team set out to disentangle these overlapping treatments. Donors were classified into a high-yield group of six or more procured organs and a low-yield group of five or fewer, based on the cohort median of six organs. Lungs and kidneys were each counted as two organs when both sides were procured, while a liver counted as one even if split among multiple recipients. The researchers then applied generalized estimating equations, a statistical framework that accounts for the fact that donor management practices cluster within institutions, adjusting for age, sex, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, catecholamine use, time from admission to procurement, and, critically, the number of organs the family had requested.

The results were unambiguous on one point and surprising on another. Low-dose methylprednisolone, defined as less than 15 milligrams per kilogram per day in methylprednisolone equivalents, was associated with nearly triple the odds of high-yield organ procurement compared with no corticosteroid use, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.86 and a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.45 to 5.63. High-dose methylprednisolone at or above 15 milligrams per kilogram per day showed no such association. Vasopressin dose, categorized across four exposure levels, was not independently associated with overall organ yield after adjustment. The number of organs requested by the donor’s family was also independently linked to high-yield procurement, underscoring how consent conversations shape the eventual harvest.

In exploratory organ-specific analyses, the picture became even more nuanced. High-dose methylprednisolone was associated with dramatically higher odds of left lung donation, with an odds ratio of 8.99, while moderate-dose vasopressin was associated with lower odds of right lung donation. No consistent associations emerged for the heart, liver, or pancreas, and kidney models were not fitted because donation was nearly universal. The authors emphasize that these organ-specific findings are hypothesis-generating, particularly given the multiple comparisons performed, but they note that the lung signal is biologically plausible: corticosteroids may attenuate the inflammatory lung injury that accompanies brain death, a mechanism supported by earlier experimental and clinical work.

The study’s sensitivity analyses strengthened the central conclusion. When the yield threshold was shifted to five versus four organs, low-dose methylprednisolone remained significantly associated with the outcome, and when organ count was treated as a continuous variable, low-dose methylprednisolone was independently associated with an additional 0.46 organs procured per donor. Adjusting for the study period and replacing the admission-to-procurement interval with the brain-death-determination-to-procurement interval produced similar results. Vasopressin, by contrast, never emerged as an independent predictor of yield, suggesting that its principal benefit may lie in preserving donor physiology, controlling diabetes insipidus, and reducing catecholamine requirements rather than directly increasing the number of organs recovered.

The Japanese context adds an important dimension to the findings. The median time from hospital admission to organ procurement was 10 days, far longer than is typical in Western countries, reflecting Japan’s legally mandated process of two independent brain death determinations performed at least six hours apart, along with detailed family consent specifying which organs may be donated. During most of the study period, patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation could not be legally declared brain-dead under Japanese guidelines, a restriction lifted only on January 1, 2024. The scarcity of donation is itself striking: of 906 designated institutions, only 297 had ever performed a brain-dead donation procedure as of 2023, averaging roughly three cases per institution over twelve years.

The authors are careful to frame their conclusions cautiously. The study lacked recipient graft survival data, could not capture the reasons organs were not procured, and included only donors from whom at least one organ was ultimately recovered. Illness severity was adjusted only through the admission SOFA score, and variables such as target blood pressure, fluid balance, and infections were not available. Because the organ-specific analyses were exploratory and unadjusted for multiple comparisons, they require confirmation in prospective studies. Nevertheless, the message for the transplant community is clear and potentially consequential: when it comes to maximizing the gift that a brain-dead donor can give, the dose of corticosteroid may matter more than the drugs have been given credit for, and the humble low-dose regimen, rather than aggressive high-dose protocols or vasopressin titration, may be the key to unlocking more organs from every act of extraordinary generosity.

Subject of Research: Associations of vasopressin and corticosteroid therapy with organ yield in brain-dead organ donors

Article Title: Associations of Vasopressin and Corticosteroid Therapy with Organ Yield in Brain-Dead Donors: A Multicenter Cohort Study in Japan

Article References: Yumoto, T., Naito, H., Hongo, T., Obara, T., Nojima, T., Tsukahara, K., Hayakawa, M., Yokobori, S., Nishiyama, K., Atsumi, T., Tasaki, O., Yamamura, Y., Yorifuji, T., Nakao, A., and J-RESPECT study group, Tsurukiri, J., Hayamizu, M., Murahashi, S., Hayashi, M., … Hosotani, M. (2026). Associations of Vasopressin and Corticosteroid Therapy with Organ Yield in Brain-Dead Donors: A Multicenter Cohort Study in Japan. Neurocritical Care. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-026-02645-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12028-026-02645-6

Keywords: brain death, organ donation, organ transplantation, vasopressin, methylprednisolone, corticosteroids, hormone replacement therapy, donor management, critical care, J-RESPECT, organ yield, Japan

Researchers at the Intensive Care Unit of Hospital Metropolitano Doutor Célio de Castro retrospectively analyzed 178 adult patients who completed brain death protocols between December 2017 and December 2023. Of these, 141 patients underwent transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, or TCD, as the complementary exam, while 37 were evaluated with electroencephalography or cerebral angiography. The findings, published in the journal Neurocritical Care, show that TCD use was independently associated with a 53.9 percent reduction in the median time needed to complete the brain death protocol, a difference so large that it reshapes the logistics of end-of-life care and organ procurement.

The numbers are striking. In the TCD group, the median protocol duration was nine hours, with an interquartile range of five to twenty-three hours. In the non-TCD group, the median stretched to thirty-five hours, with an interquartile range of twenty to sixty-six hours. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity burden measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index, illness severity measured by the Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, calendar year, and whether the protocol was opened during business hours or after hours, TCD use carried an incidence rate ratio of 0.46, meaning the protocol took less than half as long. The only other independent predictor of protocol duration was whether the process began during business hours, underscoring how staffing availability shapes this delicate timeline.

Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography is a bedside technique that uses low-frequency ultrasound pulses through the temporal bone and other acoustic windows to measure blood flow velocity in the major arteries of the circle of Willis, including the middle cerebral, anterior cerebral, and basilar arteries. The technique was first described in 1982, when researchers demonstrated that flow velocity in the basal cerebral arteries could be recorded noninvasively. In the context of brain death, rising intracranial pressure progressively exceeds the perfusion pressure, producing a characteristic sequence of Doppler waveforms: first a blunting of diastolic flow, then oscillating or reverberating flow in which blood moves back and forth with each heartbeat without net forward perfusion, then tiny systolic contraction spikes, and finally the disappearance of detectable flow altogether. Demonstration of these arrest patterns in both anterior and posterior circulations, on two examinations separated by an interval defined by national guidelines, provides evidence of cerebral circulatory arrest.

The diagnostic credentials of the technique are well established. A meta-analysis published in Intensive Care Medicine in 2006 reported high specificity for confirming brain death, and a subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis in the American Journal of Neuroradiology reached similar conclusions, with reported sensitivity around 88 percent and specificity approaching 98 percent in pooled analyses. Brazilian guidelines issued in 2012 formally endorsed transcranial ultrasound as a confirmatory test for brain death, and the country’s Federal Council of Medicine incorporated it into the regulatory framework through Resolution 2,173 of 2017. Unlike angiography, TCD requires no transport to a radiology suite, no iodinated contrast, and no exposure of potentially donor organs to nephrotoxic agents. Unlike electroencephalography, it does not require prolonged recording sessions or interpretation delays, and it sidesteps the technical confounders of electrical artifacts in the intensive care environment.

The efficiency gains extended beyond the protocol itself. Length of stay in the intensive care unit after protocol initiation was significantly shorter in the TCD group, with a median of one day compared with two days in the non-TCD group, and an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.51. In a health system where intensive care beds are chronically scarce and expensive, each day of occupancy by a patient who has already died by neurologic criteria carries an opportunity cost measured in the patients waiting for that bed. The researchers also examined whether the choice of confirmatory exam influenced organ donation, and found that it did not: donation rates were statistically indistinguishable between the groups, at 35 percent in the TCD group and 38 percent in the non-TCD group. Faster protocols, in other words, did not come at the expense of donation outcomes, though they also did not visibly increase them in this cohort.

The study’s statistical approach was deliberately conservative. Because protocol duration and length of stay are skewed, count-like variables, the team used negative binomial regression rather than ordinary linear models, adjusting for the full panel of demographic, clinical, and logistical covariates. The groups were comparable at baseline in age, comorbidity, severity scores, and sex, with all baseline comparisons showing no significant differences. Supplementary correlation analyses reinforced the main findings: TCD use and business-hours protocol opening showed the strongest negative correlations with protocol duration, while illness severity, age, and comorbidity played smaller or negligible roles. Notably, the underlying diagnoses differed between groups, with subarachnoid hemorrhage more frequent among patients who did not receive TCD, at 49 percent versus 26 percent, and ischemic stroke more frequent in the TCD group, at 28 percent versus 11 percent. This pattern likely reflects a practical reality of neurosonology: adequate acoustic windows are harder to obtain in some patients, and certain clinical scenarios push teams toward angiography or electroencephalography instead.

The authors are careful about the limits of their conclusions. This was a single-center, retrospective study at a Brazilian tertiary hospital where confirmatory testing is mandatory, and they caution that generalizability to settings without such requirements is limited. In countries where confirmatory tests are optional, the operational calculus differs, since the protocol can sometimes be completed with repeated clinical examinations alone. The findings also hinge on the availability of trained practitioners; TCD interpretation in the setting of suspected brain death demands specific expertise in recognizing the arrest waveforms and in distinguishing them from technical limitations such as poor insonation windows. The authors argue that their results support broader implementation of TCD in countries with mandatory confirmatory testing, contingent on that trained practitioner availability being secured.

The implications ripple outward to two of the most pressing issues in critical care. The first is organ donation, where every hour of delay increases the risk of hemodynamic instability, cardiac arrest, and loss of viable organs, and where families awaiting a definitive answer endure prolonged uncertainty at the bedside. The second is intensive care capacity, where protocols that conclude in nine hours rather than thirty-five return beds to the queue of critically ill patients faster. A bedside ultrasound exam that costs a fraction of a digital subtraction angiography study and requires no patient transport may thus be one of the highest-leverage tools available in the delicate interval between devastating brain injury and the formal pronouncement of death. As brain death determination frameworks worldwide undergo revision, including the recent consensus guideline from American neurologic and critical care societies, this Brazilian dataset offers a reminder that the operational details of how death is confirmed can matter almost as much as the criteria themselves.

Subject of Research: Use of transcranial Doppler ultrasonography as a confirmatory exam in brain death determination protocols

Article Title: Transcranial Doppler Ultrasonography as a Complementary Exam in Brain Death Determination: Impact on Protocol Duration and ICU Length of Stay—A Single-Center Study in Brazil

Article References: de Freitas, M. R., de Lima, A. F., & Coutinho, C. F. A. (2026). Transcranial Doppler Ultrasonography as a Complementary Exam in Brain Death Determination: Impact on Protocol Duration and ICU Length of Stay—A Single-Center Study in Brazil. Neurocritical Care. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-026-02641-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12028-026-02641-w

Keywords: transcranial Doppler, brain death, brain death protocol, organ donation, intensive care unit, cerebral circulatory arrest, neurocritical care, TCD ultrasonography, ICU length of stay, Brazil, confirmatory testing, negative binomial regression