Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans1, Jeannette Hofmeijer, Albertus Beishuizen, Harold W Hom, Michiel J Blans, Frank H Bosch, Michel J A M van Putten. 1. 1Department of clinical neurophysiology and neurology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.2Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, MIRA-Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.3Department of neurology, Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.4Intensive Care Center, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.5Department of Intensive Care, Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early electroencephalography measures contribute to outcome prediction of comatose patients after cardiac arrest. We present predictive values of a new cerebral recovery index, based on a combination of quantitative electroencephalography measures, extracted every hour, and combined by the use of a random forest classifier. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Medical ICU of two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-three consecutive comatose patients after cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Continuous electroencephalography was recorded during the first 3 days. Outcome at 6 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2, no or moderate disability) or poor (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5, severe disability, comatose, or death). Nine quantitative electroencephalography measures were extracted. Patients were randomly divided over a training and validation set. Within the training set, a random forest classifier was fitted for each hour after cardiac arrest. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated in the validation set. The relative contributions of resuscitation parameters and patient characteristics were evaluated. The cerebral recovery index ranges from 0 (prediction of death) to 1 (prediction of full recovery). Poor outcome could be predicted at a threshold of 0.34 without false positives at a sensitivity of 56% at 12 hours after cardiac arrest. At 24 hours, sensitivity of 65% with a false positive rate of 6% was obtained. Good neurologic outcome could be predicted with sensitivities of 63% and 58% at a false positive rate of 6% and 7% at 12 and 24 hours, respectively. Adding patient characteristics was of limited additional predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: A cerebral recovery index based on a combination of intermittently extracted, optimally combined quantitative electroencephalography measures provides unequalled prognostic value for comatose patients after cardiac arrest and enables bedside EEG interpretation of unexperienced readers.
OBJECTIVE: Early electroencephalography measures contribute to outcome prediction of comatosepatients after cardiac arrest. We present predictive values of a new cerebral recovery index, based on a combination of quantitative electroencephalography measures, extracted every hour, and combined by the use of a random forest classifier. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Medical ICU of two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-three consecutive comatosepatients after cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Continuous electroencephalography was recorded during the first 3 days. Outcome at 6 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Category 1-2, no or moderate disability) or poor (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5, severe disability, comatose, or death). Nine quantitative electroencephalography measures were extracted. Patients were randomly divided over a training and validation set. Within the training set, a random forest classifier was fitted for each hour after cardiac arrest. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated in the validation set. The relative contributions of resuscitation parameters and patient characteristics were evaluated. The cerebral recovery index ranges from 0 (prediction of death) to 1 (prediction of full recovery). Poor outcome could be predicted at a threshold of 0.34 without false positives at a sensitivity of 56% at 12 hours after cardiac arrest. At 24 hours, sensitivity of 65% with a false positive rate of 6% was obtained. Good neurologic outcome could be predicted with sensitivities of 63% and 58% at a false positive rate of 6% and 7% at 12 and 24 hours, respectively. Adding patient characteristics was of limited additional predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: A cerebral recovery index based on a combination of intermittently extracted, optimally combined quantitative electroencephalography measures provides unequalled prognostic value for comatosepatients after cardiac arrest and enables bedside EEG interpretation of unexperienced readers.
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: Mohammad M Ghassemi; Edilberto Amorim; Tuka Alhanai; Jong W Lee; Susan T Herman; Adithya Sivaraju; Nicolas Gaspard; Lawrence J Hirsch; Benjamin M Scirica; Siddharth Biswal; Valdery Moura Junior; Sydney S Cash; Emery N Brown; Roger G Mark; M Brandon Westover Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Wei-Long Zheng; Edilberto Amorim; Jin Jing; Ona Wu; Mohammad Ghassemi; Jong Woo Lee; Adithya Sivaraju; Trudy Pang; Susan T Herman; Nicolas Gaspard; Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Michel J A M van Putten; M Brandon Westover Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.756
Authors: Wei-Long Zheng; Edilberto Amorim; Jin Jing; Wendong Ge; Shenda Hong; Ona Wu; Mohammad Ghassemi; Jong Woo Lee; Adithya Sivaraju; Trudy Pang; Susan T Herman; Nicolas Gaspard; Barry J Ruijter; Jimeng Sun; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Michel J A M van Putten; M Brandon Westover Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-10-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ward Eertmans; Cornelia Genbrugge; Gilles Haesevoets; Jo Dens; Willem Boer; Frank Jans; Cathy De Deyne Journal: Crit Care Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 9.097
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: Fernando G Zampieri; Pedro Póvoa; Jorge I Salluh; Alejandro Rodriguez; Sandrine Valade; José Andrade Gomes; Jean Reignier; Elena Molinos; Jordi Almirall; Nicolas Boussekey; Lorenzo Socias; Paula Ramirez; William N Viana; Anahita Rouzé; Saad Nseir; Ignacio Martin-Loeches Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.510