• Resuscitation · Oct 2020

    Multicenter Study

    Is there inter-observer variation in the interpretation of SSEPs in comatose cardiac arrest survivors? Further considerations following the Italian Multicenter ProNeCa Study.

    • Maria Grazia Celani, Riccardo Carrai, Teresa Anna Cantisani, Maenia Scarpino, Maria Vittoria Ercolani, Francesco Lolli, Giovanni Lanzo, Paolo Costa, Paola Lanteri, Angelo Antonio Bignamini, Aldo Amantini, Antonello Grippo, and ProNeCa Study Group.
    • SC di Neurofisiopatologia, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Italy. Electronic address: mgrazia.celani@ospedale.perugia.it.
    • Resuscitation. 2020 Oct 1; 155: 207-210.

    BackgroundBilateral absence of N20 peak in median nerve Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) is considered the most valid predictor of poor outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We investigated the consistency in interpreting SSEP recordings in a multicentre study.Methods44 SSEP recordings randomly extracted from 600 recordings of 392 patients included in the "Prognostication of Neurological outcome after Cardiac Arrest (ProNeCa) study" were blindly read by three expert neurophysiologists. Agreement between raters, and individual agreement of each rater vs. reference standard (RS), were calculated using Kappa Coefficients. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC).ResultsWhen raters had to evaluate the presence of N20 with normal amplitude, the inter-rater agreement was very high (Kappa = 0.84). In the case of N20 absence the agreement was good (Kappa = 0.66), but when N20 amplitude was low, the agreement decreased to moderate (Kappa = 0.579) becoming even weaker when it was "Non Assessable" (Kappa = 0.107). The agreement of each rater with the RS had a range from moderate to very good; rater1 Kappa = 0.589 (95%CI 0.397-0.781; p < 0.001), rater2 Kappa = 0.644 (95%CI 0.460-0.828; p < 0.001), rater3 Kappa = 0.859 (95%CI 0.698-1.000; p < 0.001). The ICC was barely good, 0.682 (95%CI 0.539-0.798; p = 0.0075).ConclusionDifferent health professionals, using different equipment in a multicentre study, had very good inter-rater agreement in interpreting SSEP records. The interpretation of "Non Assessable" SEPPs, mainly in relation to noise level, is still a crucial issue because it increases rater uncertainty. For this reason, it is important to focus on improving recording quality and interpretation of records.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.