• Resuscitation · Mar 2021

    Multicenter Study

    Does a combination of ≥2 abnormal tests vs. the ERC-ESICM stepwise algorithm improve prediction of poor neurological outcome after cardiac arrest? A post-hoc analysis of the ProNeCA multicentre study.

    • Maenia Scarpino, Francesco Lolli, Giovanni Lanzo, Riccardo Carrai, Maddalena Spalletti, Franco Valzania, Maria Lombardi, Daniela Audenino, Maria Grazia Celani, Alfonso Marrelli, Sara Contardi, Adriano Peris, Aldo Amantini, Antonello Grippo, and Claudio Sandroni.
    • SODc Neurofisiopatologia, Dipartimento Neuromuscolo-Scheletrico e degli Organi di Senso, AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy; IRCCS, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Florence, Italy.
    • Resuscitation. 2021 Mar 1; 160: 158-167.

    BackgroundBilaterally absent pupillary light reflexes (PLR) or N20 waves of short-latency evoked potentials (SSEPs) are recommended by the 2015 ERC-ESICM guidelines as robust, first-line predictors of poor neurological outcome after cardiac arrest. However, recent evidence shows that the false positive rates (FPRs) of these tests may be higher than previously reported. We investigated if testing accuracy is improved when combining PLR/SSEPs with malignant electroencephalogram (EEG), oedema on brain computed tomography (CT), or early status myoclonus (SM).MethodsPost-hoc analysis of ProNeCA multicentre prognostication study. We compared the prognostic accuracy of the ERC-ESICM prognostication strategy vs. that of a new strategy combining ≥2 abnormal results from any of PLR, SSEPs, EEG, CT and SM. We also investigated if using alternative classifications for abnormal SSEPs (absent-pathological vs. bilaterally-absent N20) or malignant EEG (ACNS-defined suppression or burst-suppression vs. unreactive burst-suppression or status epilepticus) improved test sensitivity.ResultsWe assessed 210 adult comatose resuscitated patients of whom 164 (78%) had poor neurological outcome (CPC 3-5) at six months. FPRs and sensitivities of the ≥2 abnormal test strategy vs. the ERC-ESICM algorithm were 0[0-8]% vs. 7 [1-18]% and 49[41-57]% vs. 63[56-71]%, respectively (p < .0001). Using alternative SSEP/EEG definitions increased the number of patients with ≥2 concordant test results and the sensitivity of both strategies (67[59-74]% and 54[46-61]% respectively), with no loss of specificity.ConclusionsIn comatose resuscitated patients, a prognostication strategy combining ≥2 among PLR, SSEPs, EEG, CT and SM was more specific than the 2015 ERC-ESICM prognostication algorithm for predicting 6-month poor neurological outcome.Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free 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…