Baron Leonard, Shemie Sam D, Teitelbaum Jeannie, Doig Christopher James
Department of Anesthesia, Misericordia Community Hospital, 16940 - 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5R 4H5, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 2006 Jun;53(6):602-8. doi: 10.1007/BF03021852.
Despite general worldwide acceptance of the concept of neurological determination of death (NDD), inconsistencies in clinical criteria and ancillary testing requirements remain. Numerous guidelines for NDD may be applied in clinical practice by a variety of medical practitioners, but the scientific rationale for specific guideline recommendations often remains unclear. This review examines the evolution of NDD, and seeks to provide scientific validation for existing NDD criteria.
English language peer-reviewed medical journals and established contemporary medical texts.
Currently published guidelines appear to have evolved from the work of the ad hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. The Conference of the Royal Colleges and Faculties of the United Kingdom refined the criteria and subsequently adopted the principal of brainstem death. While the fundamentals of NDD guidelines are remarkably consistent worldwide, specific criteria and requirements are often inconsistent.
Numerous controversies regarding NDD continue to exist, necessitating further scientific clarification of these issues. More recently published guidelines representing the collective opinion of world experts in NDD based upon best current scientific evidence are available in current medical journals.
尽管神经学判定死亡（NDD）的概念在全球范围内已被普遍接受，但临床标准和辅助检查要求仍存在不一致之处。众多NDD指南可能会被各类医学从业者应用于临床实践，但特定指南建议的科学依据往往仍不明确。本综述探讨了NDD的演变，并试图为现有的NDD标准提供科学验证。
英文同行评审医学期刊和当代权威医学文献。
目前发布的指南似乎是从哈佛医学院特设委员会关于审查脑死亡定义的工作演变而来的。英国皇家医学院和学院会议对标准进行了完善，随后采用了脑干死亡原则。虽然NDD指南的基本原理在全球范围内显著一致，但具体标准和要求往往不一致。
关于NDD仍存在诸多争议，有必要对这些问题进行进一步的科学阐释。基于当前最佳科学证据、代表全球NDD专家集体意见的最新发布指南可在当前医学期刊中获取。
