• Daniela Fatuzzo, Isabelle Beuchat, Vincent Alvarez, Jan Novy, Mauro Oddo, and Andrea O Rossetti.
• Department of Neurology, CHUV and Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "G.F. Ingrassia", University of Catania, Catania, Ital... more y. less
• Resuscitation. 2018 Nov 1; 132: 29-32.

AimElectroencephalography (EEG) is a key modality for assessment of prognosis following cardiac arrest (CA); however, whether continuous EEG (cEEG) is superior to routine intermittent EEG (rEEG) remains debated. We examined the impact of cEEG (>18 h) vs. rEEG (<30 min) on outcome in comatose CA patients as part of multimodal prognostication.MethodsWe analysed a large prospective registry of comatose post-CA adults (n = 497; 2009-2018), stratified based on whether they received cEEG (n = 62) or rEEG (n = 435), including standardized reactivity testing at two time-points. The primary endpoint was the impact of cEEG vs. rEEG on Glasgow-Pittsburgh Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) at three months; we also assessed impact on time to death.ResultsMain patients' baseline clinical characteristics and CPC scores were comparable between the EEG groups. By multivariable analysis age, non-shockable rhythm, presence of early myoclonus, absent EEG background reactivity, absent somato-sensory evoked potentials, and serum NSE were independently associated with poor neurological outcome (CPC 3-5), while the EEG approach had no impact on patient prognosis and time to death.ConclusionsOur data suggest that cEEG does not confer any advantage over intermittent rEEG regarding outcome in patients with CA, and does not influence the time to death.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…