Neurogenic pulmonary edema (NPE) is usually defined as an acute pulmonary edema occurring shortly after a central neurologic insult. It has been reported regularly for a long time in numerous and various injuries of the central nervous system in both adults and children, but remains poorly understood because of the complexity of its pathophysiologic mechanisms involving hemodynamic and inflammatory aspects. NPE seems to be under-diagnosed in acute neurologic injuries, partly because the prevention and detection of non-neurologic complications of acute cerebral insults are not at the forefront of the strategy of physicians. The presence of NPE should be high on the list of diagnoses when patients with central neurologic injury suddenly become dyspneic or present with a decreased P(a)o(2)/F(i)o(2) ratio. The associated mortality rate is high, but recovery is usually rapid with early and appropriate management. The treatment of NPE should aim to meet the oxygenation needs without impairing cerebral hemodynamics, to avoid pulmonary worsening and to treat possible associated myocardial dysfunction. During brain death, NPE may worsen myocardial dysfunction, preventing heart harvesting.

After severe SAH, in the context of multiple clinical interventions, increased natriuresis and low blood volume are consistent with cerebral salt wasting syndrome, probably related to the sequence of severe SAH, highly increased sympathetic tone, hyperreninemic hypoaldosteronism syndrome, and increased natriuretic peptides release.

French law 2005-370 of April 22, 2005 (Leonetti's law) brings new rights to patients and clarifies medical practices regarding end of life care. This new law prohibits unreasonable obstinacy in investigations or therapeutics and authorizes the withholding or withdrawal of treatments when they appear "useless, disproportionate or having no other effect than solely the artificial preservation of life". Relief from pain is a fundamental right of patients. With regard to pain control, the law also allows doctors to dispense to patients "in an advanced or final phase of a serious and incurable affliction" anti-pain treatments as needed, even if these treatments, as a side effect, hasten their death. The drafting of advance directives regarding end of life constitutes a new right of patients. The decision to withdraw or withhold a treatment from a patient unable to express their will has to take into account the wishes they might have expressed through advance directives, and/or the wishes of a trusted person or, lastly, of the family. Before making any decision, physicians should respect a collegial medical procedure. Euthanasia defined as the act of terminating one's life on a patient's explicit request remains illegal.

To fulfill their crucial duty of relieving suffering in their patients, physicians may have to administer palliative sedation when they implement treatment-limitation decisions such as the withdrawal of life-supporting interventions in patients with poor prognosis chronic severe brain injury. The issue of palliative sedation deserves particular attention in adults with serious brain injuries and in neonates with severe and irreversible brain lesions, who are unable to express pain or to state their wishes. In France, treatment limitation decisions for these patients are left to the physicians. Treatment-limitation decisions are made collegially, based on the presence of irreversible brain lesions responsible for chronic severe disorders of consciousness. Before these decisions are implemented, they are communicated to the relatives. Because the presence and severity of pain cannot be assessed in these patients, palliative analgesia and/or sedation should be administered. However, palliative sedation is a complex strategy that requires safeguards to prevent a drift toward hastening death or performing covert euthanasia. In addition to the law on patients' rights at the end of life passed in France on April 22, 2005, a recent revision of Article 37 of the French code of medical ethics both acknowledges that treatment-limitation decisions and palliative sedation may be required in patients with severe brain injuries and provides legal and ethical safeguards against a shift towards euthanasia. This legislation may hold value as a model for other countries where euthanasia is illegal and for countries such as Belgium and Netherlands where euthanasia is legal but not allowed in patients incapable of asking for euthanasia but in whom a treatment limitation decision has been made.

The chronic worldwide lack of organs for transplantation and the continuing improvement of strategies for in situ organ preservation have led to renewed interest in elective non-therapeutic ventilation of potential organ donors. Two types of situation may be eligible for elective intensive care: patients definitely evolving towards brain death and patients suitable as controlled non-heart beating organ donors after life-supporting therapies have been assessed as futile and withdrawn. Assessment of the ethical acceptability and the risks of these strategies is essential. We here offer such an ethical assessment using the four principles of medical ethics of Beauchamp and Childress applying them in their broadest sense so as to include patients and their families, their caregivers, other potential recipients of intensive care, and indeed society as a whole. The main ethical problems emerging are the definition of beneficence for the potential organ donor, the dilemma between the duty to respect a dying patient's autonomy and the duty not to harm him/her, and the possible psychological and social harm for families, caregivers other potential recipients of therapeutic intensive care, and society more generally. Caution is expressed about the ethical acceptability of elective non-therapeutic ventilation, along with some proposals for precautionary measures to be taken if it is to be implemented.

No abstract

Background: Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) is a potentially devastating complication after intracranial aneurysm rupture and its mechanisms remain poorly elucidated. Early identification of the patients prone to developing DCI after rupture may represent a major breakthrough in its prevention and treatment. The single gene approach of DCI has demonstrated interest in humans. We hypothesized that whole genome expression profile of blood cells may be useful for better comprehension and prediction of aneurysmal DCI. Methods: Over a 35-month period, 218 patients with aneurysm rupture were included in this study. DCI was defined as the occurrence of a new delayed neurological deficit occurring within 2 weeks after aneurysm rupture with evidence of ischemia either on perfusion-diffusion MRI, CT angiography or CT perfusion imaging, or with cerebral angiography. DCI patients were matched against controls based on 4 out of 5 criteria (age, sex, Fisher grade, aneurysm location and smoking status). Genome-wide expression analysis of blood cells obtained at admission was performed by microarrays. Transcriptomic analysis was performed using long oligonucleotide microarrays representing 25,000 genes. Quantitative PCR: 1 µg of total RNA extracted was reverse-transcribed, and the resulting cDNA was diluted 10-fold before performing quantitative PCR. Microarray data were first analyzed by ‘Significance Analysis of Microarrays' software which includes the Benjamini correction for multiple testing. In a second step, microarray data fold change was compared using a two-tailed, paired t test. Analysis of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curves were used for prediction analysis. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the additive value of multiple biomarkers. Results: A total of 16 patients demonstrated DCI. Significance Analysis of Microarrays software failed to retrieve significant genes, most probably because of the heterogeneity of the patients included in the microarray experiments and the small size of the DCI population sample. Standard two-tailed paired t test and C-statistic revealed significant associations between gene expression and the occurrence of DCI: in particular, the expression of neuroregulin 1 was 1.6-fold upregulated in patients with DCI (p = 0.01) and predicted DCI with an area under the ROC curve of 0.96. Logistic regression analyses revealed a significant association between neuroregulin 1 and DCI (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.02-2.09, p = 0.02). Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that blood cells may be a reservoir of prognostic biomarkers of DCI in patients with intracranial aneurysm rupture. Despite an evident lack of power, this study elicited neuroregulin 1, a vasoreactivity-, inflammation- and angiogenesis-related gene, as a possible candidate predictor of DCI. Larger cohort studies are needed but genome-wide microarray-based studies are promising research tools for the understanding of DCI after intracranial aneurysm rupture.

Paralytic ileus is a major concern in the acute phase of spinal cord injury. Classical treatment with neostigmine is often ineffective. Continuous intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine infusion has been previously proposed intra and post-operatively in order to decrease the duration of post-operative ileus after abdominal surgery. We report the cases of seven patients suffering from complete paralytic spinal cord injury-related ileus with colectasy resistant to neostigmine, who were treated by i.v. lidocaine infusion.