Sara Leingang Wiley1, Babak Razavi2, Prashanth Krishnamohan2, Michael Mlynash2, Irina Eyngorn2, Kimford J Meador2, Karen G Hirsch3. 1. Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, MC 5778, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 3. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, MC 5778, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. khirsch@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Forty to sixty-six percent of patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest remain comatose, and historic outcome predictors are unreliable. Quantitative spectral analysis of continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) may differ between patients with good and poor outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients with post-cardiac arrest hypoxic-ischemic coma undergoing cEEG were enrolled. Spectral analysis was conducted on artifact-free contiguous 5-min cEEG epochs from each hour. Whole band (1-30 Hz), delta (δ, 1-4 Hz), theta (θ, 4-8 Hz), alpha (α, 8-13 Hz), beta (β, 13-30 Hz), α/δ power ratio, percent suppression, and variability were calculated and correlated with outcome. Graphical patterns of quantitative EEG (qEEG) were described and categorized as correlating with outcome. Clinical outcome was dichotomized, with good neurologic outcome being consciousness recovery. RESULTS: Ten subjects with a mean age = 50 yrs (range = 18-65) were analyzed. There were significant differences in total power (3.50 [3.30-4.06] vs. 0.68 [0.52-1.02], p = 0.01), alpha power (1.39 [0.66-1.79] vs 0.27 [0.17-0.48], p < 0.05), delta power (2.78 [2.21-3.01] vs 0.55 [0.38-0.83], p = 0.01), percent suppression (0.66 [0.02-2.42] vs 73.4 [48.0-97.5], p = 0.01), and multiple measures of variability between good and poor outcome patients (all values median [IQR], good vs. poor). qEEG patterns with high or increasing power or large power variability were associated with good outcome (n = 6). Patterns with consistently low or decreasing power or minimal power variability were associated with poor outcome (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest qEEG metrics correlate with outcome. In some patients, qEEG patterns change over the first three days post-arrest.
BACKGROUND: Forty to sixty-six percent of patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest remain comatose, and historic outcome predictors are unreliable. Quantitative spectral analysis of continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) may differ between patients with good and poor outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients with post-cardiac arrest hypoxic-ischemic coma undergoing cEEG were enrolled. Spectral analysis was conducted on artifact-free contiguous 5-min cEEG epochs from each hour. Whole band (1-30 Hz), delta (δ, 1-4 Hz), theta (θ, 4-8 Hz), alpha (α, 8-13 Hz), beta (β, 13-30 Hz), α/δ power ratio, percent suppression, and variability were calculated and correlated with outcome. Graphical patterns of quantitative EEG (qEEG) were described and categorized as correlating with outcome. Clinical outcome was dichotomized, with good neurologic outcome being consciousness recovery. RESULTS: Ten subjects with a mean age = 50 yrs (range = 18-65) were analyzed. There were significant differences in total power (3.50 [3.30-4.06] vs. 0.68 [0.52-1.02], p = 0.01), alpha power (1.39 [0.66-1.79] vs 0.27 [0.17-0.48], p < 0.05), delta power (2.78 [2.21-3.01] vs 0.55 [0.38-0.83], p = 0.01), percent suppression (0.66 [0.02-2.42] vs 73.4 [48.0-97.5], p = 0.01), and multiple measures of variability between good and poor outcome patients (all values median [IQR], good vs. poor). qEEG patterns with high or increasing power or large power variability were associated with good outcome (n = 6). Patterns with consistently low or decreasing power or minimal power variability were associated with poor outcome (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest qEEG metrics correlate with outcome. In some patients, qEEG patterns change over the first three days post-arrest.
Authors: Amy Z Crepeau; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Jennifer E Fugate; Jay Mandrekar; Eelco F Wijdicks; Roger D White; Jeffrey W Britton Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-01-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Edgar A Samaniego; Michael Mlynash; Anna Finley Caulfield; Irina Eyngorn; Christine A C Wijman Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Jan Claassen; Lawrence J Hirsch; Kurt T Kreiter; Evelyn Y Du; E Sander Connolly; Ronald G Emerson; Stephan A Mayer Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Fokke B van Meulen; Gjerrit Meinsma; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Seungha Lee; Xuelong Zhao; Kathryn A Davis; Alexis A Topjian; Brian Litt; Nicholas S Abend Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Archana A Patel; Ali Jannati; Sameer C Dhamne; Monica Sapuwa; Elizabeth Kalanga; Maitreyi Mazumdar; Gretchen L Birbeck; Alexander Rotenberg Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 2.937
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: Alexander Andrews; Tesfaye Zelleke; Rima Izem; Jiaxiang Gai; Dana Harrar; Jessica Mvula; Douglas G Postels Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Frank A Rasulo; Philip Hopkins; Francisco A Lobo; Pierre Pandin; Basil Matta; Carla Carozzi; Stefano Romagnoli; Anthony Absalom; Rafael Badenes; Thomas Bleck; Anselmo Caricato; Jan Claassen; André Denault; Cristina Honorato; Saba Motta; Geert Meyfroidt; Finn Michael Radtke; Zaccaria Ricci; Chiara Robba; Fabio S Taccone; Paul Vespa; Ida Nardiello; Massimo Lamperti Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: Daniel B Rubin; Brigid Angelini; Maryum Shoukat; Catherine J Chu; Sahar F Zafar; M Brandon Westover; Sydney S Cash; Eric S Rosenthal Journal: Brain Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 15.255