Literature DB >> 20645026

The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after cardiac arrest.

Jennifer E Fugate1, Alejandro A Rabinstein, Daniel O Claassen, Roger D White, Eelco F M Wijdicks.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prognostication for survivors of cardiac arrest is a frequent challenge to neurologists. Our aim was to determine whether the FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) score is an accurate predictor of outcome in patients after cardiac arrest and to compare its performance to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS).
METHODS: We prospectively identified patients surviving cardiac arrest from June 2006 to October 2009. Neurologic exams were grouped into two time intervals following cardiac arrest: 1-2 days and 3-5 days. The FOUR score and the Glasgow coma scale (GCS) were determined for each examination. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: Of 136 patients, 112 (82%) were examined on days 1-2 after cardiac arrest and 87 (64%) on days 3-5. Forty-seven patients (35%) survived to hospital discharge and 89 (65%) died during hospitalization. No patients with a sum FOUR score ≤ 4 at exam days 3-5 survived (false positive rate [FPR] 0% C.I. 0.000-0.0345), whereas one patient (2%) with sum GCS score of 3 survived to discharge (FPR 2.2%, C.I. < 0.0001-0.1758). At days 3-5 after arrest, 41 of 45 (91%) patients with a sum FOUR score > 8 survived (P < 0.0001), while 39 of 45 (87%) with a sum GCS > 6 survived (P < 0.0001). A 2-point improvement in FOUR score, but not GCS, in serial exams was associated with survival. Sensitivities, specificities, positive, and negative predictive values were comparable between both scales.
CONCLUSION: The FOUR score, a simple clinical tool, is an accurate predictor of outcome in patients surviving cardiac arrest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20645026     DOI: 10.1007/s12028-010-9407-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurocrit Care        ISSN: 1541-6933            Impact factor:   3.210


  19 in total

Review 1.  Practice parameter: prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Authors:  E F M Wijdicks; A Hijdra; G B Young; C L Bassetti; S Wiebe
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2006-07-25       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  Validation of a new coma scale, the FOUR score, in the emergency department.

Authors:  Latha G Stead; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Anjali Bhagra; Rahul Kashyap; M Fernanda Bellolio; David L Nash; Sailaja Enduri; Raquel Schears; Bamlet William
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 3.210

3.  Predictive value of Glasgow coma score for awakening after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Cerebral Resuscitation Study Group of the Belgian Society for Intensive Care.

Authors:  A Mullie; P Verstringe; W Buylaert; H Houbrechts; N Michem; H Delooz; H Verbruggen; L Van den Broeck; L Corne; D Lauwaert
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-01-23       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Validation of a new coma scale: The FOUR score.

Authors:  Eelco F M Wijdicks; William R Bamlet; Boby V Maramattom; Edward M Manno; Robyn L McClelland
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 10.422

5.  Prognostic value of brain diffusion-weighted imaging after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Christine A C Wijman; Michael Mlynash; Anna Finley Caulfield; Amie W Hsia; Irina Eyngorn; Roland Bammer; Nancy Fischbein; Gregory W Albers; Michael Moseley
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 10.422

6.  The prognostic value of evoked responses from primary somatosensory and auditory cortex in comatose patients.

Authors:  F Logi; C Fischer; L Murri; F Mauguière
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  The Glasgow Coma Score is a predictor of good outcome in cardiac arrest patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia.

Authors:  Joerg C Schefold; Christian Storm; Anne Krüger; Christoph J Ploner; Dietrich Hasper
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2009-04-11       Impact factor: 5.262

8.  Further validation of the FOUR score coma scale by intensive care nurses.

Authors:  Chris A Wolf; Eelco F M Wijdicks; William R Bamlet; Robyn L McClelland
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 7.616

9.  Assessment of neurological prognosis in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. BRCT I Study Group.

Authors:  E Edgren; U Hedstrand; S Kelsey; K Sutton-Tyrrell; P Safar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-04-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Prediction of outcome in patients with anoxic coma: a clinical and electrophysiologic study.

Authors:  R Chen; C F Bolton; B Young
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 7.598

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  2015 Revised Utstein-Style Recommended Guidelines for Uniform Reporting of Data From Drowning-Related Resuscitation: An ILCOR Advisory Statement.

Authors:  Ahamed H Idris; Joost J L M Bierens; Gavin D Perkins; Volker Wenzel; Vinay Nadkarni; Peter Morley; David S Warner; Alexis Topjian; Allart M Venema; Christine M Branche; David Szpilman; Luiz Morizot-Leite; Masahiko Nitta; Bo Løfgren; Jonathon Webber; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Stephen B Beerman; Chun Song Youn; Ulrich Jost; Linda Quan; Cameron Dezfulian; Anthony J Handley; Mary Fran Hazinski
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2017-07

Review 2.  Post-anoxic vegetative state: imaging and prognostic perspectives.

Authors:  Mario Stanziano; Carolina Foglia; Andrea Soddu; Francesca Gargano; Michele Papa
Journal:  Funct Neurol       Date:  2011 Jan-Mar

3.  The FOUR score: is it just another new coma scale?

Authors:  Luis A Idrovo Freire
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 3.397

4.  Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Liege Scale/Glasgow Coma Scale in an intensive care unit population.

Authors:  Marie-Aurélie Bruno; Didier Ledoux; Bernard Lambermont; François Damas; Caroline Schnakers; Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse; Olivia Gosseries; Steven Laureys
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.210

5.  FOUR Score Predicts Early Outcome in Patients After Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Tee-Tau Eric Nyam; Kam-Hou Ao; Shu-Yu Hung; Mei-Li Shen; Tzu-Chieh Yu; Jinn-Rung Kuo
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.210

6.  The FOUR score predicts outcome in patients after traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Farid Sadaka; Darshan Patel; Rekha Lakshmanan
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.210

7.  Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in prediction of pediatric coma.

Authors:  Atahar Jamal; Naveen Sankhyan; Murlidharan Jayashree; Sunit Singhi; Pratibha Singhi
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2017

8.  Accuracy of Limited-Montage Electroencephalography in Monitoring Postanoxic Comatose Patients.

Authors:  Sandipan Pati; Lauren McClain; Lidia Moura; Yuan Fan; M Brandon Westover
Journal:  Clin EEG Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 1.843

9.  The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) Score and Its Use in Outcome Prediction: A Scoping Systematic Review of the Adult Literature.

Authors:  A Almojuela; M Hasen; F A Zeiler
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.210

10.  Which score should be used in intubated patients' Glasgow coma scale or full outline of unresponsiveness?

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Heidari Gorji; Ali Morad Heidari Gorji; Seyed Hossein Hosseini
Journal:  Int J Appl Basic Med Res       Date:  2015 May-Aug
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.