M Spalletti1, R Carrai2, M Scarpino2, C Cossu1, A Ammannati1, M Ciapetti3, L Tadini Buoninsegni3, A Peris3, S Valente4, A Grippo2, A Amantini5. 1. SODc Neurofisiopatologia, DAI Neuro-muscolo-scheletrico e organi di senso, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 2. SODc Neurofisiopatologia, DAI Neuro-muscolo-scheletrico e organi di senso, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; UO Riabilitazione neurologica, Fond. "Don Gnocchi" IRCCS Polo Toscana, Florence, Italy. 3. SODc Cure intensive per il trauma e supporti extracorporei, DAI Neuro-muscolo-scheletrico e organi di senso, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 4. SODc Cardiologia Intensiva Integrata, DAI Cardiotoracovascolare, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 5. SODc Neurofisiopatologia, DAI Neuro-muscolo-scheletrico e organi di senso, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; UO Riabilitazione neurologica, Fond. "Don Gnocchi" IRCCS Polo Toscana, Florence, Italy. Electronic address: amantini@unifi.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of single EEG patterns recorded at various time-frames in postanoxic comatose patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included 30-min EEGs, classified according to the definitions of continuity of background activity given by the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Isoelectric pattern was distinguished from other suppressed activities. Epileptiform patterns were considered separately. Outcome was dichotomised based on recovery of consciousness as good (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] 3-5) or poor (GOS 1-2). RESULTS: We analysed 211 EEGs, categorised according to time since cardiac arrest (within 12h and around 24, 48 and 72h). In each time-frame we observed at least one EEG pattern which was 100% specific to poor or good outcome: at 12h continuous and nearly continuous patterns predicted good outcome and isoelectric pattern poor outcome; at 24h isoelectric and burst-suppression predicted poor outcome; at 48 and 72h isoelectric, burst-suppression and suppression (2-10μV) patterns predicted poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of single EEG patterns, defined according to continuity and voltage of background activity, changes until 48-72h after cardiac arrest and in each time-frame there is at least one pattern which accurately predicts good or poor outcome. SIGNIFICANCE: Standard EEG can provide time-dependent reliable indicators of good and poor outcome throughout the first 48-72h after cardiac arrest.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of single EEG patterns recorded at various time-frames in postanoxic comatosepatients. METHODS: This retrospective study included 30-min EEGs, classified according to the definitions of continuity of background activity given by the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Isoelectric pattern was distinguished from other suppressed activities. Epileptiform patterns were considered separately. Outcome was dichotomised based on recovery of consciousness as good (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] 3-5) or poor (GOS 1-2). RESULTS: We analysed 211 EEGs, categorised according to time since cardiac arrest (within 12h and around 24, 48 and 72h). In each time-frame we observed at least one EEG pattern which was 100% specific to poor or good outcome: at 12h continuous and nearly continuous patterns predicted good outcome and isoelectric pattern poor outcome; at 24h isoelectric and burst-suppression predicted poor outcome; at 48 and 72h isoelectric, burst-suppression and suppression (2-10μV) patterns predicted poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of single EEG patterns, defined according to continuity and voltage of background activity, changes until 48-72h after cardiac arrest and in each time-frame there is at least one pattern which accurately predicts good or poor outcome. SIGNIFICANCE: Standard EEG can provide time-dependent reliable indicators of good and poor outcome throughout the first 48-72h after cardiac arrest.
Authors: Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Selma C Tromp; Walter M van den Bergh; Norbert A Foudraine; Francois H M Kornips; Gea Drost; Erik Scholten; Frank H Bosch; Albertus Beishuizen; Michel J A M van Putten; Jeannette Hofmeijer Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Astrid B Glimmerveen; Hanneke M Keijzer; Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Michel J A M van Putten; Jeannette Hofmeijer Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Jakob I Doerrfuss; Alexander B Kowski; Martin Holtkamp; Moritz Thinius; Christoph Leithner; Christian Storm Journal: J Neurol Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Danny M W Hilkman; Walther N K A van Mook; Werner H Mess; Vivianne H J M van Kranen-Mastenbroek Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.210