| Literature DB >> 23870424 |
Soo Hyun Kim1, Seung Pill Choi, Kyu Nam Park, Chun Song Youn, Sang Hoon Oh, Se Min Choi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association between the results of immediate brain computed tomography (CT) scans and outcome in patients who were treated with therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest. The evaluation was based on the changes in the ratio of gray matter to white matter.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23870424 PMCID: PMC3726374 DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-57
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Figure 1Brain computed tomography images showing measurements in Hounsfield units at the basal ganglia level (left), the centrum semiovale level (middle), and the high convexity level (right). The circular regions of interest (10 mm2) are positioned in the caudate nucleus, putamen, posterior limb of the internal capsule, and genu of the corpus callosum at the level of the basal ganglia and are positioned in the medial cortex and medial white matter at the centrum semiovale and high convexity levels.
Figure 2Subjects included in the study.
Baseline characteristics of the patients included in this study
| Age, years, mean ± SD | 55.3 ± 14.6 | 51.3 ± 16.8 | 0.365 |
| Male, N (%) | 17 (56.7) | 16 (76.2) | 0.200 |
| Underlying disease, N (%) | | | |
| Hypertension | 2 (9.5) | 7 (23.3) | 0.203 |
| Diabetes | 2 (9.5) | 4 (13.3) | 0.678 |
| Stroke | 0 | 2 (6.7) | 0.227 |
| Coronary disease | 4 (19.0) | 1 (3.3) | 0.063 |
| Renal disease | 0 | 1 (3.3) | 0.398 |
| Pulmonary disease | 0 | 4 (13.3) | 0.081 |
| Witnessed arrest, N (%) | 16 (53.3) | 19 (90.5) | 0.005 |
| Bystander CPR, N (%) | 11 (36.7) | 12 (57.1) | 0.100 |
| Shockable rhythm, N (%) | 5 (16.7) | 15 (71.4) | <0.001 |
| Cardiac etiology, N (%) | 15 (50.0) | 20 (95.2) | 0.001 |
| Time, min, median (IQR) | | | |
| collapse to CPR start | 1.0 (0.0-6.0) | 7.5 (3.75-21.0) | 0.009 |
| CPR start to ROSC | 20.0 (12.0-31.5) | 23.5 (19.0-30.0) | 0.276 |
| collapse to ROSC | 25.0 (19.0-35.5) | 34.5 (25.8-48.3) | 0.018 |
| Epinephrine dose during resuscitation, median (IQR) | 3.0 (2.0-4.0) | 2.0 (0.0-5.0) | 0.388 |
| Time from ROSC to CT, min, median (IQR) | 15.5 (6.8-25.8) | 13.0 (6.5-21.5) | 0.619 |
| Neurologic examination after ROSC, N (%) | | | |
| GCS scores 3 | 14 (66.7) | 30 (100.0) | 0.009 |
| GCS scores 4 | 1 (4.8) | 0 | |
| GCS scores 5 | 3 (14.3) | 0 | |
| GCS scores 6 | 3 (14.3) | 0 | |
| Present pupillary light reflex | 10 (47.6) | 4 (13.3) | 0.007 |
| Present corneal reflex | 9 (42.9) | 2 (6.7) | 0.002 |
| Present motor response | 8 (38.1) | 0 | <0.001 |
| Outcome | | | |
| Length of hospital stay, days, median (IQR) | 16.0 (13.0-29.0) | 4.0 (3.0-7.3) | <0.001 |
| Survival discharge, N (%) | 21 | 8 |
SD standard deviation, CT computed tomography, ROSC return of spontaneous circulation, OHCA out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, IQR interquartile range, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, GCS Glasgow coma scale.
Comparisons of the attenuations in Hounsfield units in regions of interest and of the gray matter-to-white matter ratio between groups
| Basal ganglia | Gray matter | CN | 37.6 ± 1.4 | 36.6 ± 1.8 | 0.030 |
| | PU | 38.3 ± 1.7 | 36.7 ± 2.5 | 0.038 | |
| White matter | CC | 29.8 ± 2.0 | 29.8 ± 2.2 | 0.946 | |
| | PIC | 29.0 ± 2.0 | 29.9 ± 2.2 | 0.094 | |
| Centrum semiovale | Gray matter | MC1 | 36.8 ± 1.3 | 35.9 ± 2.0 | 0.072 |
| White matter | MW1 | 30.3 ± 1.9 | 30.3 ± 3.2 | 0.990 | |
| High convexity area | Gray matter | MC2 | 37.8 ± 1.9 | 36.1 ± 2.4 | 0.043 |
| White matter | MW2 | 30.5 ± 1.7 | 30.4 ± 3.0 | 0.927 | |
| Gray-White matter Ratio (GWR) | | | | ||
| Basal ganglia | 1.30 ± 0.09 | 1.23 ± 0.07 | 0.005 | ||
| Cerebrum | 1.23 ± 0.06 | 1.19 ± 0.07 | 0.041 | ||
| Average | 1.26 ± 0.07 | 1.21 ± 0.06 | 0.003 | ||
CN caudate nucleus, PU putamen, CC corpus callosum, PIC posterior internal capsule, MC1 medial cortex at the centrum semiovale, MW1 medial white matter at the centrum semiovale, MC2 medial cortex at the high convexity level, MW2 medial white matter at the high convexity level, GWR Basal ganglia = (CN + PU)/(CC + PIC); GWR Cerebrum = (MC1 + MC2) / (MW1 + MW2); GWR Average = (GWR Basal ganglia + GWR Cerebrum)/2.
Figure 3Comparison of the attenuations in gray and white matter between groups. The ends of the floating columns indicate the min and max values, and the middle line is the mean.
Figure 4Receiver operator characteristic curve for the prediction poor outcome using the GWRs.
Specificity and sensitivity for poor outcome of attenuation measurements and GWR
| Basal ganglia | 1.12 | 3.3 | 100 | 100 | 42.0 | 0.716 | 0.005 |
| 1.24 | 66.7 | 61.9 | 71.4 | 56.5 | (0.572-0.833) | ||
| Cerebrum | 1.12 | 20.0 | 100 | 100 | 46.7 | 0.685 | 0.015 |
| 1.22 | 70.0 | 61.9 | 72.4 | 59.1 | (0.540-0.808) | ||
| Average | 1.14 | 13.3 | 100 | 100 | 44.7 | 0.747 | 0.003 |
| 1.24 | 76.7 | 57.1 | 71.9 | 63.2 | (0.579-0.838) |
GWR gray-white matter ratio, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, AUC area under curve, CI confidence interval.