• Resuscitation · Oct 2022

    A pilot study of methods for prediction of poor outcome by head computed tomography after cardiac arrest.

    • Margareta Lang, Niklas Nielsen, Susann Ullén, Kasim Abul-Kasim, Mikael Johnsson, Raimund Helbok, Christoph Leithner, Tobias Cronberg, and Marion Moseby-Knappe.
    • Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Radiology, Lund University, Helsingborg Hospital, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: margareta.lang@med.lu.se.
    • Resuscitation. 2022 Oct 1; 179: 61-70.

    IntroductionIn Sweden, head computed tomography (CT) is commonly used for prediction of neurological outcome after cardiac arrest, as recommended by guidelines. We compare the prognostic ability and interrater variability of routine and novel CT methods for prediction of poor outcome.MethodsRetrospective study including patients from Swedish sites within the Target Temperature Management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest trial examined with CT. Original images were assessed by two independent radiologists blinded from clinical data with eye-balling without pre-specified criteria, and with a semi-quantitative assessment. Grey-white-matter ratios (GWR) were quantified using models with 4-20 manually placed regions of interest. Prognostic abilities and interrater variability were calculated for prediction of poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale 4-6 at 6 months) for early (<24 h) and late (≥24 h) examinations.Results68/106 (64 %) of included patients were examined < 24 h post-arrest. Eye-balling predicted poor outcome with 89-100 % specificity and 15-78 % sensitivity. GWR < 24 h predicted neurological outcome with unsatisfactory to satisfactory Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AUROC: 0.54-0.64). GWR ≥ 24 h yielded very good to excellent AUROC (0.80-0.93). Sensitivities increased > 2-3-fold in examinations performed after 24 h compared to early examinations. Combining eye-balling with GWR < 1.15 predicted poor outcome without false positives with sensitivities remaining acceptable.ConclusionIn our cohort, qualitative and quantitative CT methods predicted poor outcome with high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity. Sensitivity increased relevantly after the first 24 h after CA. Interrater variability poses a problem and indicates the need to standardise brain CT evaluation to increase the methods' safety.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. 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…

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.