Ing-Marie Larsson1, Ewa Wallin2, Marja-Leena Kristofferzon3, Marion Niessner4, Henrik Zetterberg5, Sten Rubertsson2. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences-Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Uppsala University, SE- 751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: ing-marie.larsson@surgsci.uu.se. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences-Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Uppsala University, SE- 751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Health and Caring Sciences, University of Gävle, SE- 801 76 Gävle, Sweden; Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, SE- 751 22 Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Penzberg, Germany. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Mölndal, Sweden; UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate serum levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for evaluation of neurological outcome in cardiac arrest (CA) patients and compare GFAP sensitivity and specificity to that of more studied biomarkers neuron-specific enolas (NSE) and S100B. METHOD: A prospective observational study was performed in three hospitals in Sweden during 2008-2012. The participants were 125 CA patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia (TH) to 32-34 °C for 24 hours. Samples were collected from peripheral blood (n=125) and the jugular bulb (n=47) up to 108 hours post-CA. GFAP serum levels were quantified using a novel, fully automated immunochemical method. Other biomarkers investigated were NSE and S100B. Neurological outcome was assessed using the Cerebral Performance Categories scale (CPC) and dichotomized into good and poor outcome. RESULTS: GFAP predicted poor neurological outcome with 100% specificity and 14-23% sensitivity at 24, 48 and 72 hours post-CA. The corresponding values for NSE were 27-50% sensitivity and for S100B 21-30% sensitivity when specificity was set to 100%. A logistic regression with stepwise combination of the investigated biomarkers, GFAP, did not increase the ability to predict neurological outcome. No differences were found in GFAP, NSE and S100B levels when peripheral and jugular bulb blood samples were compared. CONCLUSION: Serum GFAP increase in patients with poor outcome but did not show sufficient sensitivity to predict neurological outcome after CA. Both NSE and S100B were shown to be better predictors. The ability to predict neurological outcome did not increased when combining the three biomarkers.
AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate serum levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for evaluation of neurological outcome in cardiac arrest (CA) patients and compare GFAP sensitivity and specificity to that of more studied biomarkers neuron-specific enolas (NSE) and S100B. METHOD: A prospective observational study was performed in three hospitals in Sweden during 2008-2012. The participants were 125 CA patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia (TH) to 32-34 °C for 24 hours. Samples were collected from peripheral blood (n=125) and the jugular bulb (n=47) up to 108 hours post-CA. GFAP serum levels were quantified using a novel, fully automated immunochemical method. Other biomarkers investigated were NSE and S100B. Neurological outcome was assessed using the Cerebral Performance Categories scale (CPC) and dichotomized into good and poor outcome. RESULTS:GFAP predicted poor neurological outcome with 100% specificity and 14-23% sensitivity at 24, 48 and 72 hours post-CA. The corresponding values for NSE were 27-50% sensitivity and for S100B 21-30% sensitivity when specificity was set to 100%. A logistic regression with stepwise combination of the investigated biomarkers, GFAP, did not increase the ability to predict neurological outcome. No differences were found in GFAP, NSE and S100B levels when peripheral and jugular bulb blood samples were compared. CONCLUSION: Serum GFAP increase in patients with poor outcome but did not show sufficient sensitivity to predict neurological outcome after CA. Both NSE and S100B were shown to be better predictors. The ability to predict neurological outcome did not increased when combining the three biomarkers.
Authors: Julia Tichy; Sabrina Spechtmeyer; Michel Mittelbronn; Elke Hattingen; Johannes Rieger; Christian Senft; Christian Foerch Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Ericka L Fink; Rachel P Berger; Robert S B Clark; R Scott Watson; Derek C Angus; Ashok Panigrahy; Rudolph Richichi; Clifton W Callaway; Michael J Bell; Stefania Mondello; Ronald L Hayes; Patrick M Kochanek Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ahmed Abdelhak; Matteo Foschi; Samir Abu-Rumeileh; John K Yue; Lucio D'Anna; Andre Huss; Patrick Oeckl; Albert C Ludolph; Jens Kuhle; Axel Petzold; Geoffrey T Manley; Ari J Green; Markus Otto; Hayrettin Tumani Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 44.711
Authors: Pascal Stammet; Josef Dankiewicz; Niklas Nielsen; François Fays; Olivier Collignon; Christian Hassager; Michael Wanscher; Johan Undèn; Jorn Wetterslev; Tommaso Pellis; Anders Aneman; Jan Hovdenes; Matt P Wise; Georges Gilson; David Erlinge; Janneke Horn; Tobias Cronberg; Michael Kuiper; Jesper Kjaergaard; Yvan Gasche; Yvan Devaux; Hans Friberg Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ditte S Jonesco; Christian Hassager; Martin Frydland; Jesper Kjærgaard; Morten Karsdal; Kim Henriksen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sebastian Wiberg; Frederik Holmgaard; Kaj Blennow; Jens C Nilsson; Jesper Kjaergaard; Michael Wanscher; Annika R Langkilde; Christian Hassager; Lars S Rasmussen; Henrik Zetterberg; Anne Grønborg Vedel Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2021-01-22
Authors: Ferran Rueda; Germán Cediel; Cosme García-García; Júlia Aranyó; Marta González-Lopera; M Cruz Aranda Nevado; Judith Serra Gregori; Teresa Oliveras; Carlos Labata; Marc Ferrer; Nabil El Ouaddi; Antoni Bayés-Genís Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 6.925