Literature DB >> 21317029

Predicting comatose patients with acute stroke outcome using middle-latency somatosensory evoked potentials.

Yan Zhang1, Ying Ying Su, Hong Ye, Shu Ying Xiao, Wei Bi Chen, Jing Wei Zhao.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of middle-latency somatosensory evoked potential (MLSEP) in comatose patients with acute severe supratentorial stroke, considering both unfavourable outcome and death.
METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with acute severe supratentorial stroke underwent MLSEP, short-latency somatosensory evoked potential (SLSEP), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and cerebral computed tomography (CCT) within 1 week from onset. MLSEP and SLSEP were recorded in 25 normal controls. All patients were evaluated with two criteria of outcome as unfavourable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 4-6) and death 6 months after onset. N60 of MLSEP predictive value was compared with N20 of SLSEP, GCS and CCT.
RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients (76.1%) suffered from cerebral infarction; and 21 patients (23.9%) suffered from intracerebral haemorrhage. Seventy-one patients (80.7%) had unfavourable outcomes and 39 patients (44.3%) died. The peak latencies of MLSEP were prolonged and some waves of MLSEP were absent in stroke patients, and the proportion of absent waves in lesion-ipsilateral MLSEP was higher than in contralateral MLSEP. By using the prognostic authenticity analysis of predictors, the lesion-ipsilateral absence of N60 showed the highest sensitivity for unfavourable outcome (97.2%, confidence interval (CI): 89.3-99.5%) and death (100%, CI: 88.8-100%), which was superior to GCS, CCT and N20. Bilateral absence of N60 showed a high specificity of 100% for unfavourable outcome, which was as good as bilateral absence of N20. However, it showed a specificity of 89.8% (CI: 77.0-96.2%) for death, not as good as bilateral absence of N20 (98%, CI: 87.8-99.9%). The false positive rate of lesion-ipsilateral absence of N60 for unfavourable outcome and death was 12.7% (CI: 6.6-22.5%) and 50.6% (CI: 39.2-62.0%), respectively, and that of bilateral absence of N60 was 0 (CI: 0-12.3%) and 14.3% (CI: 5.4-31.0%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the high predictive value of MLSEP in severe stroke. MLSEP showed higher sensitivity than SLSEP for predicting unfavourable outcome and death. Combined MLSEP with SLSEP results produced even greater predictive value. SIGNIFICANCE: The combination of MLSEP and SLSEP would increase the sensitivity and maintain the high specificity not only for predicting outcome in coma after cardiopulmonary resuscitation but also after severe stroke.
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21317029     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.11.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  8 in total

Review 1.  Noninvasive Neuromonitoring: Current Utility in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Stroke.

Authors:  Luisa Vinciguerra; Julian Bösel
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.210

2.  The Prognostic Utility of Electroencephalography in Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Amanda A Vatinno; Annie Simpson; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Heather S Bonilha; Leonardo Bonilha; Na Jin Seo
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2022-03-20       Impact factor: 3.919

3.  Prognostic value of somatosensory evoked potentials, neuron-specific enolase, and S100 for short-term outcome in ischemic stroke.

Authors:  Walter F Haupt; Ghesal Chopan; Jan Sobesky; Wei-Chi Liu; Christian Dohmen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Pain-related somatosensory evoked potentials and functional brain magnetic resonance in the evaluation of neurologic recovery after cardiac arrest: a case study of three patients.

Authors:  Paolo Zanatta; Simone Messerotti Benvenuti; Fabrizio Baldanzi; Matteo Bendini; Marsilio Saccavini; Wadih Tamari; Daniela Palomba; Enrico Bosco
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2012-03-31       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Epidermal Electrode Technology for Detecting Ultrasonic Perturbation of Sensory Brain Activity.

Authors:  Stanley Huang; Jonathan A N Fisher; Meijun Ye; Yun-Soung Kim; Rui Ma; Marjan Nabili; Victor Krauthamer; Matthew R Myers; Todd P Coleman; Cristin G Welle
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 4.756

6.  Whole-scalp EEG mapping of somatosensory evoked potentials in macaque monkeys.

Authors:  Anne-Dominique Gindrat; Charles Quairiaux; Juliane Britz; Denis Brunet; Florian Lanz; Christoph M Michel; Eric M Rouiller
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2014-05-04       Impact factor: 3.270

7.  Middle latency auditory-evoked potential index monitoring of cerebral function to predict functional outcome after emergency craniotomy in patients with brain damage.

Authors:  Junya Tsurukiri; Katsuhiro Nagata; Akira Hoshiai; Taishi Oomura; Hiroyuki Jimbo; Yukio Ikeda
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Pain-related Somato Sensory Evoked Potentials: a potential new tool to improve the prognostic prediction of coma after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Paolo Zanatta; Federico Linassi; Anna Paola Mazzarolo; Maria Aricò; Enrico Bosco; Matteo Bendini; Carlo Sorbara; Carlo Ori; Michele Carron; Bruno Scarpa
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 9.097

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.