OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic ability of sensory evoked potentials in cardiac arrest survivors with the outcome predicted by a panel of experienced emergency physicians based on detailed prehospital, clinical, and laboratory data. DESIGN: Inception cohort study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit and department of emergency medicine at a university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 162 unconscious, mechanically ventilated patients who survived > or =24 hrs after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: Recording of sensory evoked potentials and outcome prediction after review of detailed clinical and laboratory data by emergency physicians within 24 hrs after cardiac arrest. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 6 months, the outcome of 36 patients was classified as favorable and 126 patients were rated as poor. After review of prehospital data, emergency physicians predicted favorable vs. poor outcome with a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 65%. After additional assessment of data 1 hr after cardiac arrest, the sensitivity of emergency physician predictions increased to 80%, whereas the specificity decreased to 48%. Outcome prediction by emergency physicians was most accurate after obtaining detailed patient data 24 hrs after cardiac arrest (sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 58%). In 35 of 36 patients with favorable outcomes, the cortical evoked potential N70 peak was detected between 72 and 128 msec. Of 113 patients with an N70 peak latency >130 msec or an absent N70 peak, all except one had a poor outcome. By using a cutoff of 130 msec, the N70 peak latency alone had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 97%. The predictive accuracy of the N70 peak latency was significantly higher than the clinical assessment 24 hrs after cardiac arrest (91% vs. 76%, p = .0003). CONCLUSION: In unconscious cardiac arrest survivors, a recording of long-latency sensory evoked potentials is more accurate in predicting individual outcome than an emergency physician review of clinical data.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic ability of sensory evoked potentials in cardiac arrest survivors with the outcome predicted by a panel of experienced emergency physicians based on detailed prehospital, clinical, and laboratory data. DESIGN: Inception cohort study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit and department of emergency medicine at a university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 162 unconscious, mechanically ventilated patients who survived > or =24 hrs after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: Recording of sensory evoked potentials and outcome prediction after review of detailed clinical and laboratory data by emergency physicians within 24 hrs after cardiac arrest. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 6 months, the outcome of 36 patients was classified as favorable and 126 patients were rated as poor. After review of prehospital data, emergency physicians predicted favorable vs. poor outcome with a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 65%. After additional assessment of data 1 hr after cardiac arrest, the sensitivity of emergency physician predictions increased to 80%, whereas the specificity decreased to 48%. Outcome prediction by emergency physicians was most accurate after obtaining detailed patient data 24 hrs after cardiac arrest (sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 58%). In 35 of 36 patients with favorable outcomes, the cortical evoked potential N70 peak was detected between 72 and 128 msec. Of 113 patients with an N70 peak latency >130 msec or an absent N70 peak, all except one had a poor outcome. By using a cutoff of 130 msec, the N70 peak latency alone had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 97%. The predictive accuracy of the N70 peak latency was significantly higher than the clinical assessment 24 hrs after cardiac arrest (91% vs. 76%, p = .0003). CONCLUSION: In unconscious cardiac arrest survivors, a recording of long-latency sensory evoked potentials is more accurate in predicting individual outcome than an emergency physician review of clinical data.
Authors: Clifton W Callaway; Michael W Donnino; Ericka L Fink; Romergryko G Geocadin; Eyal Golan; Karl B Kern; Marion Leary; William J Meurer; Mary Ann Peberdy; Trevonne M Thompson; Janice L Zimmerman Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690