Andrea O Rossetti1, Diego F Tovar Quiroga, Elsa Juan, Jan Novy, Roger D White, Nawfel Ben-Hamouda, Jeffrey W Britton, Mauro Oddo, Alejandro A Rabinstein. 1. 1Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV) and Université de Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.2Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.3Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.4Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV) and Université de Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prognostic role of electroencephalography during and after targeted temperature management in postcardiac arrest patients, relatively to other predictors, is incompletely known. We assessed performances of electroencephalography during and after targeted temperature management toward good and poor outcomes, along with other recognized predictors. DESIGN: Cohort study (April 2009 to March 2016). SETTING: Two academic hospitals (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN). PATIENTS: Consecutive comatose adults admitted after cardiac arrest, identified through prospective registries. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were managed with targeted temperature management, receiving prespecified standardized clinical, neurophysiologic (particularly, electroencephalography during and after targeted temperature management), and biochemical evaluations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed electroencephalography variables (reactivity, continuity, epileptiform features, and prespecified "benign" or "highly malignant" patterns based on the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society nomenclature) and other clinical, neurophysiologic (somatosensory-evoked potential), and biochemical prognosticators. Good outcome (Cerebral Performance Categories 1 and 2) and mortality predictions at 3 months were calculated. Among 357 patients, early electroencephalography reactivity and continuity and flexor or better motor reaction had greater than 70% positive predictive value for good outcome; reactivity (80.4%; 95% CI, 75.9-84.4%) and motor response (80.1%; 95% CI, 75.6-84.1%) had highest accuracy. Early benign electroencephalography heralded good outcome in 86.2% (95% CI, 79.8-91.1%). False positive rates for mortality were less than 5% for epileptiform or nonreactive early electroencephalography, nonreactive late electroencephalography, absent somatosensory-evoked potential, absent pupillary or corneal reflexes, presence of myoclonus, and neuron-specific enolase greater than 75 µg/L; accuracy was highest for early electroencephalography reactivity (86.6%; 95% CI, 82.6-90.0). Early highly malignant electroencephalography had an false positive rate of 1.5% with accuracy of 85.7% (95% CI, 81.7-89.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides class III evidence that electroencephalography reactivity predicts both poor and good outcomes, and motor reaction good outcome after cardiac arrest. Electroencephalography reactivity seems to be the best discriminator between good and poor outcomes. Standardized electroencephalography interpretation seems to predict both conditions during and after targeted temperature management.
OBJECTIVE: The prognostic role of electroencephalography during and after targeted temperature management in postcardiac arrestpatients, relatively to other predictors, is incompletely known. We assessed performances of electroencephalography during and after targeted temperature management toward good and poor outcomes, along with other recognized predictors. DESIGN: Cohort study (April 2009 to March 2016). SETTING: Two academic hospitals (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN). PATIENTS: Consecutive comatose adults admitted after cardiac arrest, identified through prospective registries. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were managed with targeted temperature management, receiving prespecified standardized clinical, neurophysiologic (particularly, electroencephalography during and after targeted temperature management), and biochemical evaluations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed electroencephalography variables (reactivity, continuity, epileptiform features, and prespecified "benign" or "highly malignant" patterns based on the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society nomenclature) and other clinical, neurophysiologic (somatosensory-evoked potential), and biochemical prognosticators. Good outcome (Cerebral Performance Categories 1 and 2) and mortality predictions at 3 months were calculated. Among 357 patients, early electroencephalography reactivity and continuity and flexor or better motor reaction had greater than 70% positive predictive value for good outcome; reactivity (80.4%; 95% CI, 75.9-84.4%) and motor response (80.1%; 95% CI, 75.6-84.1%) had highest accuracy. Early benign electroencephalography heralded good outcome in 86.2% (95% CI, 79.8-91.1%). False positive rates for mortality were less than 5% for epileptiform or nonreactive early electroencephalography, nonreactive late electroencephalography, absent somatosensory-evoked potential, absent pupillary or corneal reflexes, presence of myoclonus, and neuron-specific enolase greater than 75 µg/L; accuracy was highest for early electroencephalography reactivity (86.6%; 95% CI, 82.6-90.0). Early highly malignant electroencephalography had an false positive rate of 1.5% with accuracy of 85.7% (95% CI, 81.7-89.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides class III evidence that electroencephalography reactivity predicts both poor and good outcomes, and motor reaction good outcome after cardiac arrest. Electroencephalography reactivity seems to be the best discriminator between good and poor outcomes. Standardized electroencephalography interpretation seems to predict both conditions during and after targeted temperature management.
Authors: Stefan Jonas; Andrea O Rossetti; Mauro Oddo; Simon Jenni; Paolo Favaro; Frederic Zubler Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Edilberto Amorim; Shirley S Mo; Sebastian Palacios; Mohammad M Ghassemi; Wei-Hung Weng; Sydney S Cash; Matthew T Bianchi; M Brandon Westover Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Edilberto Amorim; Mohammad M Ghassemi; Jong W Lee; David M Greer; Peter W Kaplan; Andrew J Cole; Sydney S Cash; Matthew T Bianchi; M Brandon Westover Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.598
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: Pawan Solanki; Patrick J Coppler; Jan Terje Kvaløy; Maria A Baldwin; Clifton W Callaway; Jonathan Elmer Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Edilberto Amorim; Michelle van der Stoel; Sunil B Nagaraj; Mohammad M Ghassemi; Jin Jing; Una-May O'Reilly; Benjamin M Scirica; Jong Woo Lee; Sydney S Cash; M Brandon Westover Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Claudio Sandroni; Sonia D'Arrigo; Sofia Cacciola; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Marlijn J A Kamps; Mauro Oddo; Fabio S Taccone; Arianna Di Rocco; Frederick J A Meijer; Erik Westhall; Massimo Antonelli; Jasmeet Soar; Jerry P Nolan; Tobias Cronberg Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Claudio Sandroni; Bernd W Böttiger; Alain Cariou; Tobias Cronberg; Hans Friberg; Cornelia Genbrugge; Kirstie Haywood; Gisela Lilja; Véronique R M Moulaert; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Theresa Mariero Olasveengen; Markus B Skrifvars; Fabio Taccone; Jasmeet Soar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 17.440