Modalités de décision de limitation thérapeutique chez les traumatisés crâniens sévères : enquête auprès des neurochirurgiens en France

Background/Introduction In France, the law defines and prohibits “unreasonable obstinacy” and provides a framework for the subsequent decision to limit or to cease treatment. It also gives the person the right to appoint a trusted person and to draft advance directives regarding this issue. There have been few studies of neurosurgeons’ involvement in decision-making in regard to treatment limitation after severe traumatic brain injury. Aim of the study The first aim of the study was to assess French neurosurgeons’ adherence to the law on patients’ rights and end of life which governs such decision-making. The second aim was to assess the prognostic and decision-making criteria applied by neurosurgeons. Methods A declarative practice and opinion survey, using a self-administered questionnaire emailed to all practising neurosurgeons members of the French Society of Neurosurgery, was conducted from April to June 2016. Results Of the 197 neurosurgeons contacted, 62 filled in the questionnaire. Discussions regarding treatment limitation were in all cases collegial, as required under the law, and the patient's neurosurgeon was always involved. The trusted person and/or family were always informed and consulted, but their opinions were not consistently taken into account. Advance directives were most often lacking (68%) [56; 80] or inappropriate (27%) [16; 38]. The most frequently used prognostic criteria were clinical parameters, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and imaging, with significant interindividual variation in their use. The main decision-making criteria were foreseeable disability, expected future quality of life, and age. Conclusions Neurosurgeons showed good compliance with legal requirements, except in the matter of calling for the opinion of an external consultant. Furthermore, this survey confirmed variability in the use of prognosis predictors, and the need for further clinical research so as to achieve more-standardized practices to minimise the subjectivity in decision-making.