David K Hahn1, Romergryko G Geocadin2, David M Greer3. 1. Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States. 2. Departments of Neurology, Anesthesiology-Critical Care, Neurosurgery and Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States. Electronic address: david.greer@yale.edu.
Abstract
AIM: Neuroimaging has been proposed as a predictor of neurologic outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. We reviewed the quality and level of evidence of the current neuroimaging literature for predicting neurologic outcome in cardiac arrest patients treated with or without therapeutic hypothermia (TH). DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases were searched using the terms "cardiac arrest," "cardiopulmonary resuscitation," "brain hypoxia," "brain anoxia," "brain hypoxia-ischaemia," "neuroimaging," and "prognosis." Eligible studies were reviewed and classified by level of evidence and methodological quality as defined by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). RESULTS: 928 studies were identified, 84 of which met inclusion criteria: 74 were supportive of neuroimaging to predict outcome, eight unsupportive, and two equivocal. Several studies investigated more than one imaging modality: 27 investigated computed tomography (CT), 46 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 18 alternate imaging modalities, including positron emission tomography and single photon emission computed tomography. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Seven cohort and case control studies were identified, only one of which was graded "good" quality, two were "fair" and four were "poor." CONCLUSION: Neuroimaging is an evolving modality as a prognostic parameter in cardiac arrest survivors. However, the quality of the available literature is not robust, highlighting the need for higher quality studies before neuroimaging can be supported as a standard tool for prognostication in the patient population.
AIM: Neuroimaging has been proposed as a predictor of neurologic outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. We reviewed the quality and level of evidence of the current neuroimaging literature for predicting neurologic outcome in cardiac arrestpatients treated with or without therapeutic hypothermia (TH). DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases were searched using the terms "cardiac arrest," "cardiopulmonary resuscitation," "brain hypoxia," "brain anoxia," "brain hypoxia-ischaemia," "neuroimaging," and "prognosis." Eligible studies were reviewed and classified by level of evidence and methodological quality as defined by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). RESULTS: 928 studies were identified, 84 of which met inclusion criteria: 74 were supportive of neuroimaging to predict outcome, eight unsupportive, and two equivocal. Several studies investigated more than one imaging modality: 27 investigated computed tomography (CT), 46 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 18 alternate imaging modalities, including positron emission tomography and single photon emission computed tomography. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Seven cohort and case control studies were identified, only one of which was graded "good" quality, two were "fair" and four were "poor." CONCLUSION: Neuroimaging is an evolving modality as a prognostic parameter in cardiac arrest survivors. However, the quality of the available literature is not robust, highlighting the need for higher quality studies before neuroimaging can be supported as a standard tool for prognostication in the patient population.
Authors: Rebecca M Starling; Karuna Shekdar; Dan Licht; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Alexis A Topjian Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Wei-Long Zheng; Edilberto Amorim; Jin Jing; Ona Wu; Mohammad Ghassemi; Jong Woo Lee; Adithya Sivaraju; Trudy Pang; Susan T Herman; Nicolas Gaspard; Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Michel J A M van Putten; M Brandon Westover Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.756
Authors: A de Havenon; A Sultan-Qurraie; D Tirschwell; W Cohen; J Majersik; J B Andre Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Cesar Reis; Onat Akyol; Camila Araujo; Lei Huang; Budbazar Enkhjargal; Jay Malaguit; Vadim Gospodarev; John H Zhang Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Neill K J Adhikari; Damon C Scales; Carmen Lopez Soto; Laura Dragoi; Chinthaka C Heyn; Andreas Kramer; Ruxandra Pinto Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.210