| Literature DB >> 25894622 |
Lennart van Zellem1, Corinne Buysse, Marlous Madderom, Jeroen S Legerstee, Femke Aarsen, Dick Tibboel, Elisabeth M Utens.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research into neuropsychological functioning of survivors of cardiac arrest (CA) in childhood is scarce. We sought to assess long-term neuropsychological functioning in children and adolescents surviving CA.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25894622 PMCID: PMC4477720 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-3789-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intensive Care Med ISSN: 0342-4642 Impact factor: 17.440
Fig. 1Flowchart of patient inclusion. Lost to follow-up: moved abroad n = 7, untraceable n = 18. n is the actual number of children tested, or the number of respondents to the questionnaire (BRIEF). Numbers of patients may differ for neuropsychological tests due to different age ranges covered by the different tests (and availability of norm data). Beery VMI Beery developmental test of visual motor integration, BRIEF Behaviour rating inventory of executive function questionnaires, PICU pediatric intensive care unit, PPVT peabody picture vocabulary test, RAVLT Rey’s auditory verbal learning test, ROCF Rey–Osterrieth complex figure test, Stroop stroop color word test, TEA-Ch test of everyday attention for children, TMT trail making test, WAIS Wechsler adult intelligence scale, WISC Wechsler intelligence scale for children, WPPSI Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence
Characteristics of participants and non-participants
| Participants ( | Non-participants ( |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| Age at cardiac arrest (years) | 47 | 0.4 (0–16.1) | 60 | 0.6 (0–17.0) | 0.220 |
| Male gender | 47 | 25 (53 %) | 60 | 39 (65 %) | 0.238 |
| Advanced pediatric life support (APLS) | 47 | 25 (53 %) | 60 | 43 (72 %) | 0.068 |
| Out-of-hospital arrest | 47 | 21 (47 %) | 60 | 18 (30 %) | 0.157 |
| Bystander CPR | 47 | 46 (98 %) | 57 | 56 (98 %) | 1.00 |
| Initial rhythm non-shockable | 36 | 31 (86 %) | 56 | 48 (86 %) | 1.00 |
| Etiology | |||||
| Cardiac | 47 | 16 (34 %) | 60 | 22 (37 %) | 0.840 |
| Respiratory | 47 | 23 (49 %) | 60 | 35 (58 %) | 0.434 |
| Other | 47 | 8 (17 %) | 60 | 3 (5 %) | 0.056 |
| Pre-existing medical conditionb | 47 | 26 (55 %) | 60 | 29 (48 %) | 0.560 |
| Cardiac | 26 | 13 (50 %) | 29 | 17 (59 %) | 0.840 |
| Respiratory | 26 | 10 (39 %) | 29 | 10 (35 %) | 0.434 |
| Other | 26 | 3 (12 %) | 29 | 2 (7 %) | 0.056 |
| Mild therapeutic hypothermiac | 47 | 7 (15 %) | 60 | 15 (25 %) | 0.235 |
| Socioeconomic status at follow-upd | |||||
| Level 1: “Low” | 47 | 4 (9 %) | 60 | 14 (23 %) | 0.066 |
| Level 2: “Middle” | 47 | 21 (45 %) | 60 | 31 (52 %) | 0.560 |
| Level 3: “High” | 47 | 22 (47 %) | 60 | 15 (25 %) |
|
| Age at follow-up (years) | 47 | 8.7 (2.4–18.3) | – | – | – |
All data are presented as “number of subject (%)”, except age which is presented as “median (range)”. Significant value (p < 0.05) in bold
CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ICU intensive care unit, n number, – not available
aNumber of subjects from which the variable was obtained
bChildren with a pre-existing medical history which was the cause of the CA
cChildren treated with mild therapeutic hypothermia
dSES for non-participants at time of follow-up was calculated on the basis of a combined status score of the Netherlands Institute for Social Research based on home address [24]. This score consisted of four variables: average income in neighborhood, percentage of people with low income, percentage of less educated people, and percentage of people not working. A status score of 0 (±1.16 SD) was classified as middle SES, a status score of <−1.16 was classified as low SES, and a status score of >+1.16 was classified as high SES
Overview of intelligence and neuropsychological outcome adjusted for participants’ IQ
| Cardiac arrest patients | Normative data | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
| ||
| Intelligence | |||||||
| Full scale IQa | 41 | 87.3 | 13.4 | 100 | 15 |
| |
| Verbal IQb | 39 | 92.7 | 13.7 | 100 | 15 |
| |
| Performance IQb | 39 | 85.6 | 12.7 | 100 | 15 |
| |
| Processing speed indexa,c | 31 | 91.1 | 15.6 | 100 | 15 |
| |
| Verbal comprehension indexd | 25 | 93.4 | 14.7 | 100 | 15 |
| |
| Perceptual organization indexd | 25 | 83.8 | 13.9 | 100 | 15 |
| |
| Intelligence subtest: digit span | 25 | 8.0 | 3.1 | 10 | 3 |
| |
Significant values (p < 0.05) in bold
aIntelligence scores of different age-groups were combined for the total sample by combining scores on, respectively: (1) Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III; n = 16), (2) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III; n = 23), and (3) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV; n = 2). One child was too young to be tested with the WPPSI-III (<2.6 years), and for one child the testing of intellectual functioning had to be stopped prematurely due to substantial attentional problem behavior, which made accurate testing of the intellectual functioning impossible
bIntelligence scores combined for the total group of (1) Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III), and (2) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III). WAIS-IV does not include the PIQ and VIQ
cProcession Speed Index is not available for children <4,5 years (n = 10), on the WPPSI-III
dPerceptual organization index and verbal comprehension index are not available on the WPPSI-III (n = 16)
eAll neuropsychological test were converted into Z scores and compared with the Z score (−0.84) of the mean IQ of CA survivors, as significant difference in intelligence were found and developmental delay (lower IQ) worsens their abilities on neuropsychological tests
fNumbers of patients differ for neuropsychological tests due to different age ranges and diversity in availability of normative data. The n is the actual number of patients tested
Fig. 2Results on intelligent tests compared with normative data. *Significantly different from the norm
Fig. 3Results on neuropsychological tests, adjusted for mean full-scale IQ of CA survivors. *Significantly different from the norm. **Significantly different from what would be expected based on the mean full-scale IQ of CA survivors
Parent, teacher, and self-reported executive functioning
| BRIEF parents-report | Patients | Norm |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
|
|
| ||
| Behavioral regulation index | 39.52 (12.0) | 45.22 (11.3) |
|
| Inhibit | 13.81 (4.3) | 15.78 (4.5) |
|
| Shift | 10.97 (3.5) | 12.62 (3.5) |
|
| Emotional control | 14.74 (5.2) | 16.79 (5.0) |
|
| Metacognition index | 72.52 (21.6) | 78.60 (17.5) | 0.108 |
| Organization of materials | 10.68 (3.9) | 12.14 (3.3) |
|
| Monitor | 12.77 (4.3) | 14.81 (3.7) |
|
| Global executive composite | 112.03 (31.4) | 124.13 (26.0) |
|
Only the index scores and composite scores, and subscales on which significant differences were found when compared with normative data, are presented. A complete overview of all results on the BRIEF is presented in Supplementary Table 3. Higher scores implicate worse executive functioning. Significant values (p < 0.05) in bold
BRIEF Behaviour rating inventory of executive function
aThe actual number of respondents to the questionnaire