• Gang Liu, Fei Tian, Yu Zhu, Mengdi Jiang, Lili Cui, Yan Zhang, Yuan Wang, and Yingying Su.
• Neurocritical Care Unit, Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing 10053, China.
• J Crit Care. 2023 Dec 1; 78: 154358154358.

PurposeThe intensive care of critically ill patients with large hemispheric infarction improves the survival rate. However, established prognostic markers for neurological outcome show variable accuracy. We aimed to assess the value of electrical stimulation and quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity for early prognostication in this critically ill population.Materials And MethodsWe prospectively enrolled consecutive patients between January 2018 and December 2021. EEG reactivity was randomly performed by pain or electrical stimulation via visual and quantitative analysis. Neurological outcome within 6-month was dichotomized as good (modified Rankin Scale, mRS 0-3) or poor (mRS 4-6).ResultsNinety-four patients were admitted, and 56 were included in the final analysis. EEG reactivity using electrical stimulation was superior to pain stimulation for good outcome prediction (visual analysis: AUC 0.825 vs. 0.763, P = 0.143; quantitative analysis: AUC 0.931 vs. 0.844, P = 0.058). The AUC of EEG reactivity by pain stimulation with visual analysis was 0.763, which increased to 0.931 by electrical stimulation with quantitative analysis (P = 0.006). When using quantitative analysis, the AUC of EEG reactivity increased (pain stimulation 0.763 vs. 0.844, P = 0.118; electrical stimulation 0.825 vs. 0.931, P = 0.041).ConclusionEEG reactivity by electrical stimulation and quantitative analysis seems a promising prognostic factor in these critical patients.Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…