Alexis Steinberg1, Jon C Rittenberger2, Maria Baldwin3, John Faro4, Alexandra Urban1, Naoir Zaher1, Clifton W Callaway4, Jonathan Elmer5. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: rittjc@upmc.edu. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Department of Neurology, Pittsburgh VA Medical Center, Pittsburgh PA, United States. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Abstract
AIM: Identify EEG patterns that predict or preclude favorable response in comatose post-arrest patients receiving neurostimulants. METHODS: We examined a retrospective cohort of consecutive electroencephalography (EEG)-monitored comatose post-arrest patients. We classified the last day of EEG recording before neurostimulant administration based on continuity (continuous/discontinuous), reactivity (yes/no) and malignant patterns (periodic discharges, suppression burst, myoclonic status epilepticus or seizures; yes/no). In subjects who did not receive neurostimulants, we examined the last 24h of available recording. For our primary analysis, we used logistic regression to identify EEG predictors of favorable response to treatment (awakening). RESULTS: In 585 subjects, mean (SD) age was 57 (17) years and 227 (39%) were female. Forty-seven patients (8%) received a neurostimulant. Neurostimulant administration independently predicted improved survival to hospital discharge in the overall cohort (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.00, 95% CI 1.68-9.52) although functionally favorable survival did not differ. No EEG characteristic predicted favorable response to neurostimulants. In each subgroup of unfavorable EEG characteristics, neurostimulants were associated with increased survival to hospital discharge (discontinuous background: 44% vs 7%, P=0.004; non-reactive background: 56% vs 6%, P<0.001; malignant patterns: 63% vs 5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: EEG patterns described as ominous after cardiac arrest did not preclude survival or awakening after neurostimulant administration. These data are limited by their observational nature and potential for selection bias, but suggest that EEG patterns alone should not affect consideration of neurostimulant use.
AIM: Identify EEG patterns that predict or preclude favorable response in comatose post-arrestpatients receiving neurostimulants. METHODS: We examined a retrospective cohort of consecutive electroencephalography (EEG)-monitored comatose post-arrestpatients. We classified the last day of EEG recording before neurostimulant administration based on continuity (continuous/discontinuous), reactivity (yes/no) and malignant patterns (periodic discharges, suppression burst, myoclonic status epilepticus or seizures; yes/no). In subjects who did not receive neurostimulants, we examined the last 24h of available recording. For our primary analysis, we used logistic regression to identify EEG predictors of favorable response to treatment (awakening). RESULTS: In 585 subjects, mean (SD) age was 57 (17) years and 227 (39%) were female. Forty-seven patients (8%) received a neurostimulant. Neurostimulant administration independently predicted improved survival to hospital discharge in the overall cohort (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.00, 95% CI 1.68-9.52) although functionally favorable survival did not differ. No EEG characteristic predicted favorable response to neurostimulants. In each subgroup of unfavorable EEG characteristics, neurostimulants were associated with increased survival to hospital discharge (discontinuous background: 44% vs 7%, P=0.004; non-reactive background: 56% vs 6%, P<0.001; malignant patterns: 63% vs 5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: EEG patterns described as ominous after cardiac arrest did not preclude survival or awakening after neurostimulant administration. These data are limited by their observational nature and potential for selection bias, but suggest that EEG patterns alone should not affect consideration of neurostimulant use.
Authors: Jai Madhok; Anil Maybhate; Wei Xiong; Matthew A Koenig; Romergryko G Geocadin; Xiaofeng Jia; Nitish V Thakor Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Peter D Patrick; James A Blackman; Jennifer L Mabry; Marcia L Buck; Matthew J Gurka; Mark R Conaway Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Wei Xiong; Matthew A Koenig; Jai Madhok; Xiaofeng Jia; H Adrian Puttgen; Nitish V Thakor; Romergryko G Geocadin Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jon C Rittenberger; Francis X Guyette; Samuel A Tisherman; Michael A DeVita; Rene J Alvarez; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: David J Gagnon; Angela M Leclerc; Richard R Riker; Caitlin S Brown; Teresa May; Kristina Nocella; Jennifer Cote; Ashley Eldridge; David B Seder Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.210