AIM: Use of brain biomarkers for predicting death after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is limited by a research focus on the discriminative ability of each biomarker and ethical/cultural controversy concerning the likelihood of misclassification of potential survivors. We illustrate an approach to address these limitations by creating a dynamic nomogram with four levels of sensitivity (0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 1.0) selected to represent different degrees of certainty in correct identification of survivors. METHODS: A prolective observational study conducted in a single 850-bed hospital. Admission serum S100beta (S100B) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) were determined for all adult survivors of non-traumatic out-of-hospital arrest and CPR. RESULTS: 158 patients were included, 126 (80%) died in hospital, 32 (20%) survived. Non-survivors had higher admission biomarker levels than survivors (p≤0.001 for both S100B and NSE). Presenting rhythm (VT/VF vs. other) and logarithmic-transformed S100B and NSE levels were statistically significant in the multivariable model predicting survival. The area under the model ROC curve was 0.868 (95%CI 0.80, 0.936). Plots for predicting survival for each combination of biomarker levels were generated for each sensitivity with and without VT/VF, allowing clinicians to select their option in terms of survival probability. In this modest-sized illustrative study the model misclassified 1/19 patients with Cerebral Performance Category 1-2 for sensitivity >0.80. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate how brain biomarkers can serve as decision support tools after CPR despite ethical/cultural differences in defining futility. Data from larger and diverse samples are required for stable estimates prior to clinical implementation of such a tool.
AIM: Use of brain biomarkers for predicting death after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is limited by a research focus on the discriminative ability of each biomarker and ethical/cultural controversy concerning the likelihood of misclassification of potential survivors. We illustrate an approach to address these limitations by creating a dynamic nomogram with four levels of sensitivity (0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 1.0) selected to represent different degrees of certainty in correct identification of survivors. METHODS: A prolective observational study conducted in a single 850-bed hospital. Admission serum S100beta (S100B) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) were determined for all adult survivors of non-traumatic out-of-hospital arrest and CPR. RESULTS: 158 patients were included, 126 (80%) died in hospital, 32 (20%) survived. Non-survivors had higher admission biomarker levels than survivors (p≤0.001 for both S100B and NSE). Presenting rhythm (VT/VF vs. other) and logarithmic-transformed S100B and NSE levels were statistically significant in the multivariable model predicting survival. The area under the model ROC curve was 0.868 (95%CI 0.80, 0.936). Plots for predicting survival for each combination of biomarker levels were generated for each sensitivity with and without VT/VF, allowing clinicians to select their option in terms of survival probability. In this modest-sized illustrative study the model misclassified 1/19 patients with Cerebral Performance Category 1-2 for sensitivity >0.80. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate how brain biomarkers can serve as decision support tools after CPR despite ethical/cultural differences in defining futility. Data from larger and diverse samples are required for stable estimates prior to clinical implementation of such a tool.
Authors: Teresa L May; Christine W Lary; Richard R Riker; Hans Friberg; Nainesh Patel; Eldar Søreide; John A McPherson; Johan Undén; Robert Hand; Kjetil Sunde; Pascal Stammet; Stein Rubertsson; Jan Belohlvaek; Allison Dupont; Karen G Hirsch; Felix Valsson; Karl Kern; Farid Sadaka; Johan Israelsson; Josef Dankiewicz; Niklas Nielsen; David B Seder; Sachin Agarwal Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Matthias Derwall; Andreas Ebeling; Kay Wilhelm Nolte; Joachim Weis; Rolf Rossaint; Fumito Ichinose; Christoph Nix; Michael Fries; Anne Brücken Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 9.097