K G Hirsch1, M Mlynash2, I Eyngorn2, R Pirsaheli2, A Okada3, S Komshian2, C Chen4, S A Mayer5, J F Meschia6, R A Bernstein7, O Wu8, D M Greer9, C A Wijman2, G W Albers2. 1. Stanford Stroke and Neurocritical Care Program, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. kghirsch@yahoo.com. 2. Stanford Stroke and Neurocritical Care Program, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Stanford University Oncology Division, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Mount Sinai Healthcare System, Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 7. Davee Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A Martinos Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Neurology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to predict outcomes in acutely comatose cardiac arrest survivors is limited. Brain diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI MRI) has been shown in initial studies to be a simple and effective prognostic tool. This study aimed to determine the predictive value of previously defined DWI MRI thresholds in a multi-center cohort. METHODS: DWI MRIs of comatose post-cardiac arrest patients were analyzed in this multi-center retrospective observational study. Poor outcome was defined as failure to regain consciousness within 14 days and/or death during the hospitalization. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value of each brain voxel was determined. ADC thresholds and brain volumes below each threshold were analyzed for their correlation with outcome. RESULTS: 125 patients were included in the analysis. 33 patients (26%) had a good outcome. An ADC value of less than 650 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s in ≥10% of brain volume was highly specific [91% (95% CI 75-98)] and had a good sensitivity [72% (95% CI 61-80)] for predicting poor outcome. This threshold remained an independent predictor of poor outcome in multivariable analysis (p = 0.002). An ADC value of less than 650 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s in >22% of brain volume was needed to achieve 100% specificity for poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who remain comatose after cardiac arrest, quantitative DWI MRI findings correlate with early recovery of consciousness. A DWI MRI threshold of 650 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s in ≥10% of brain volume can differentiate patients with good versus poor outcome, though in this patient population the threshold was not 100% specific for poor outcome.
BACKGROUND: The ability to predict outcomes in acutely comatose cardiac arrest survivors is limited. Brain diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI MRI) has been shown in initial studies to be a simple and effective prognostic tool. This study aimed to determine the predictive value of previously defined DWI MRI thresholds in a multi-center cohort. METHODS: DWI MRIs of comatose post-cardiac arrestpatients were analyzed in this multi-center retrospective observational study. Poor outcome was defined as failure to regain consciousness within 14 days and/or death during the hospitalization. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value of each brain voxel was determined. ADC thresholds and brain volumes below each threshold were analyzed for their correlation with outcome. RESULTS: 125 patients were included in the analysis. 33 patients (26%) had a good outcome. An ADC value of less than 650 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s in ≥10% of brain volume was highly specific [91% (95% CI 75-98)] and had a good sensitivity [72% (95% CI 61-80)] for predicting poor outcome. This threshold remained an independent predictor of poor outcome in multivariable analysis (p = 0.002). An ADC value of less than 650 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s in >22% of brain volume was needed to achieve 100% specificity for poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who remain comatose after cardiac arrest, quantitative DWI MRI findings correlate with early recovery of consciousness. A DWI MRI threshold of 650 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s in ≥10% of brain volume can differentiate patients with good versus poor outcome, though in this patient population the threshold was not 100% specific for poor outcome.
Authors: Robert W Neumar; Jerry P Nolan; Christophe Adrie; Mayuki Aibiki; Robert A Berg; Bernd W Böttiger; Clifton Callaway; Robert S B Clark; Romergryko G Geocadin; Edward C Jauch; Karl B Kern; Ivan Laurent; W T Longstreth; Raina M Merchant; Peter Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Vinay Nadkarni; Mary Ann Peberdy; Emanuel P Rivers; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; Frank W Sellke; Christian Spaulding; Kjetil Sunde; Terry Vanden Hoek Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: M E Moseley; Y Cohen; J Kucharczyk; J Mintorovitch; H S Asgari; M F Wendland; J Tsuruda; D Norman Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Mlynash; Dennis M Campbell; Emily M Leproust; Nancy J Fischbein; Roland Bammer; Irina Eyngorn; Amie W Hsia; Michael Moseley; Christine A C Wijman Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Karen G Hirsch; Michael Mlynash; Sofie Jansen; Suzanne Persoon; Irina Eyngorn; Michael V Krasnokutsky; Christine A C Wijman; Nancy J Fischbein Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Christine A C Wijman; Michael Mlynash; Anna Finley Caulfield; Amie W Hsia; Irina Eyngorn; Roland Bammer; Nancy Fischbein; Gregory W Albers; Michael Moseley Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Ona Wu; A Gregory Sorensen; Thomas Benner; Aneesh B Singhal; Karen L Furie; David M Greer Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Melika Hosseini; Robert H Wilson; Christian Crouzet; Arya Amirhekmat; Kevin S Wei; Yama Akbari Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Alexandra S Reynolds; Xiaotao Guo; Elizabeth Matthews; Daniel Brodie; Leroy E Rabbani; David J Roh; Soojin Park; Jan Claassen; Mitchell S V Elkind; Binsheng Zhao; Sachin Agarwal Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: D Pugin; J Hofmeister; Y Gasche; S Vulliemoz; K-O Lövblad; D Van De Ville; S Haller Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
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