| Literature DB >> 26589284 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: So far, the role of clinical neurophysiology in the prediction of outcome from neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation is unclear.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26589284 PMCID: PMC4654832 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-015-0496-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Studies on long-term outcome of stroke patients involving clinical neurophysiological data
| Study |
| Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeman & Yiannikas 1989 [ | 35 | Median SEP | Abnormal SEP (absence or amplitude reduction or prolonged latency N20) were associated with poor outcome (lower BI) after a mean LOS of 51 days |
| Kovala 1991 [ | 35 | Median and tibial SEP | Tibial SEP: correlation between amplitude abnormalities (absence or attenuation) and occupational outcome after 1 y |
| Median SEP: absence of N60 predicted poor outcome | |||
| Cillessen et al. 1994 [ | 55 | EEG in the acute stage | EEG (presence of delta and theta activity) predicted poor outcome after 1 year |
| Ring, Bar & Abboud, 1999 [ | 4 | VEP | Correlation between left-right asymmetry of VEP and functional outcome after a mean of 137 days inpatient rehabilitation |
| Feys et al. 2000 [ | 64 | Median SEP and upper limb MEP | Absence of SEP and MEP indicated poor outcome 2 months after stroke |
| Steube, Wiethölter & Correll 2001 [ | 100 | Lower limb MEP more than 4 weeks after stroke | Preserved MEP predicted good outcome (independence in walking) after 8 weeks of inpatient rehabilitation |
| Tzvetanov & Rousseff 2003 [ | 94 | Median and tibial SEP | N20-P25 amplitude is of some predictive value (1 y outcome), but MRC is stronger predictor of functional outcome, P40 amplitude correlated with BI ( |
| Tzvetanov, Rousseff, & Milanov 2003 [ | |||
| Tsetanov, Rousseff & Atanassova 2005 [ | |||
| Al-Rawi, Hamdan & Abdul-Muttalib 2009 [ | 22 | Median SEP | Correlation between SEP (N20 latency and amplitude) and 3-month outcome (BI, MRC) |
| Pizzi et al. 2009 [ | 52 | Upper limb MEP | In patients with severe paresis (MRC <2), absence of MEP were predictive of poor recovery |
SEP somatosensory evoked potentials, EEG electroencephalography, MEP motor evoked potentials, VEP visual evoked potentials, BI Barthel index, MRC Medical Research Council (severity of paresis)
Studies on long-term outcome of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients involving clinical neurophysiological data
| Study |
| Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mackey-Hargadine & Hall 1985 [ | 114 | AEP | Significant correlation between AEP, pupil reactivity and outcome in a 24 month period |
| Shin et al. 1989 [ | 29 | AEP and SEP | SEP helped to improve prediction of outcome 12 months after TBI |
| Thatcher et al. 1991 [ | 162 | EEG and AEP | Combination of EEG and GCS bet predicted outcome 12 months after TBI |
| Mazzini et al. 1999 [ | 27 | SEP and MEP from upper and lower limbs | Clinical and functional outcome was strongly correlated with abnormalities from tibial SEP, 6 and 12 months after TBI |
| Özbudak-Demir et al. 1999 [ | 26 | Median and tibial SEP | Normal SEP latencies were associated with better outcome, more than 8 months after TBI |
| Lew et al. 2003 [ | 22 | Median SEP | Bilateral absence of SEP was strongly predictive of worst outcome (death or vegetative state), 6 months after TBI |
| Houlden et al. 2010 [ | 81 | Median SEP | SEP within 7 days after TBI correlate with 1 y outcome |
TBI traumatic brain injury, SEP somatosensory evoked potentials, AEP auditory evoked potentials, EEG electroencephalography, MEP motor evoked potentials
Studies on long-term outcome of DOC (disorders of consciousness) patients due to hypoxic or severe brain damage of different origin involving clinical neurophysiological data
| Study |
| Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeitlhofer et al. 1991 [ | 22 | AEP and SEP | Evoked potentials had no value for the prognosis of “apallic” patients |
| Goldberg & Karazim 1998 [ | 33 | AEP and SEP | AEP and SEP predicted outcome of MCS patients |
| Howell et al. 2013 [ | 113 | SEP | SEP did not predict outcome of hypoxic brain damage survivors |
| Schorl, Valerius-Kukula & Kemmer 2014 [ | 28 | Median SEP | Bliateral loss of SEP did not exclude recovery from severe brain damage |
| Bagnato et al. 2015 [ | 101 | EEG | Reduced EEG amplitudes and delta frequencies were associated with bad clinical outcome (UWS, MCS) |
| Heinz & Rollnik 2015 [ | 93 | EEG, flash VEP, median SEP | Prolongation of wave III (flash VEP), theta or delta EEG rhythm and N20/P25-amplitude reduction (SEP) predicted poor outcome (BI <50) |
SEP somatosensory evoked potentials, AEP auditory evoked potentials, EEG electroencephalography, VEP visual evoked potentials, BI Barthel index, UWS unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, MCS minimally conscious state
Main diagnoses
| Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Stroke | 349 | 43.5 |
| Intracerebral bleeding | 107 | 13.3 |
| Subarachnoidal bleeding | 65 | 8.1 |
| Hypoxic brain damage | 37 | 3.4 |
| Polyneuropathy, GBS | 24 | 3.0 |
| Brain tumor | 23 | 2.9 |
| Traumatic brain injury | 21 | 2.6 |
| Spinal trauma | 13 | 1.6 |
| Meningitis, encephalitis | 10 | 1.2 |
| Other main diagnosis | 154 | 19.2 |
| Sum | 803 | 100 |
Characteristics of neurological early rehabilitation patients with good and poor outcome
| good outcome | poor outcome | p-value* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | 62.4 (15.7) | 69.0 (14.7) | <0.001 |
| LOS – neurological early rehabilitation [days] | 27.8 (38.0) | 46.1 (35.3) | <0.001 |
| Number of co-diagnoses [n] | 13.0 (5.4) | 16.6 (5.5) | <0.001 |
| Barthel Index (BI) on admission [0 to 100] | 33.0 (28.5) | 14.4 (8.2) | <0.001 |
| Barthel index at discharge [0 to 100] | 76.5 (16.6) | 20.7 (10.7) | <0.001 |
| Delta BI (discharge minus admission) | 43.5 (25.7) | 6.3 (9.9) | <0.001 |
| Early Rehabilitation Index (ERI) on admission [−325 to 0] | −46.5 (49.3) | −59.1 (53.6) | 0.001 |
| ERI at discharge [−325 to 0] | −14.8 (23.9) | −38.5 (46.2) | <0.001 |
| Coma Remission Scale (CRS) [0 to 24] | 15.9 (6.3) | 10.1 (6.4) | <0.001 |
| Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) on admission [3 to 15] | 12.8 (2.9) | 10.1 (3.6) | <0.001 |
| Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at discharge [3 to 15] | 14.4 (0.5) | 11.9 (3.6) | n.s. |
*t-tests for independent samples, n.s. not significant (p > 0.05)
Imaging results (lesion site)
| Brain region | Left | Right | Bilateral | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal lobe | 106 (13.2 %) | 115 (14.3 %) | 39 (4.9 %) | 260 (32.4 %) |
| Parietal lobe | 76 (9.5 %) | 127 (15.8 %) | 42 (5.2 %) | 245 (30.5 %) |
| Frontal lobe | 41 (5.1 %) | 57 (7.1 %) | 53 (6.6 %) | 151 (18.8 %) |
| Occipital lobe | 25 (3.1 %) | 29 (3.6 %) | 24 (3.0 %) | 78 (9.7 %) |
| Brain stem | 16 (2.0 %) | 17 (2.1 %) | 27 (3.4 %) | 60 (7.5 %) |
| Cerebellum | 12 (1.5 %) | 17 (2.1 %) | 14 (1.7 %) | 43 (5.3 %) |
Absence of median SEP on one or both sides and outcome categories
| Absence of median SEP | Sum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome |
|
|
|
| |
| Poor | 200 | 24 | 35 | 14 | 273 |
| Good | 153 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 176 |
| Sum | 353 | 33 | 47 | 16 | 449 |
Data of evoked potentials
| Outcome | GOOD | POOR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left | Right | Left | Right | |
| Auditory evoked potentials (AEP) | ||||
| Latency I [ms] | 1.71 (0.18) | 1.70 (0.18) | 1.72 (0.20) | 1.73 (0.19) |
| Latency II [ms] | 2.82 (0.24) | 2.84 (0.27) | 2.84 (0.25) | 2.83 (0.25) |
| Latency III [ms] | 3.95 (0.25)* | 3.95 (0.25)** | 4.01 (0.26)* | 4.02 (0.27)** |
| Latency IV [ms] | 5.09 (0.32)* | 5.09 (0.29) | 5.15 (0.33)* | 5.12 (0.33) |
| Latency V [ms] | 5.93 (0.32) | 5.95 (0.30) | 5.95 (0.32) | 5.98 (0.32) |
| Visual evoked potentials (flash VEP) | ||||
| Latency I [ms] | 52.7 (15.7) | 53.2 (14.5) | 52.4 (13.7) | 52.8 (13.2) |
| Latency II [ms] | 75.7 (17.3) | 77.1 (15.9) | 78.2 (16.9) | 78.6 (16.0) |
| Latency III [ms] | 108.1 (20.7)* | 110.2 (20.2)* | 115.2 (21.1)* | 115.5 (19.6)* |
| Amplitude I/II [μV] | 8.3 (7.9) | 8.7 (8.2) | 7.9 (6.2) | 8.3 (6.2) |
| Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) of the median nerve | ||||
| N20 [ms] | 21.0 (1.8) | 20.8 (2.5) | 21.1 (2.1) | 21.1 (1.9) |
| P25 [ms] | 26.1 (2.7) | 26.3 (3.2) | 25.7 (3.0) | 26.2 (3.1) |
| Amplitude N20/P25 [μV] | 3.7 (2.4) | 3.9 (3.0) | 4.0 (3.7) | 3.8 (4.0) |
Significant differences between subjects with good and poor outcome are indicated as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (t-tests for independent samples)
EEG activity and outcome
| EEG frequency | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome |
|
|
| Sum |
| Poor | 79 | 86 | 36 | 201 |
| Good | 80 | 39 | 5 | 124 |
| Sum | 159 | 125 | 41 | 325 |
Fig. 1When patients had alpha EEG-activity, BI on admission, at discharge and changes of BI (discharge minus admission) were significantly higher than patients with theta or delta activity (ANOVAs with LSD-tests, p < 0.001)