OBJECTIVES: Cardiac arrest etiology may be an important source of between-patient heterogeneity, but the impact of etiology on organ injury is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that asphyxial cardiac arrest results in greater neurologic injury than cardiac etiology cardiac arrest (ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest), whereas ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest results in greater cardiovascular dysfunction after return of spontaneous circulation. DESIGN: Prospective observational human and randomized animal study. SETTING: University laboratory and ICUs. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-three cardiac arrest patients admitted to ICU. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five male Sprague-Dawley rats. INTERVENTIONS: We examined neurologic and cardiovascular injury in Isoflurane-anesthetized rat cardiac arrest models matched by ischemic time. Hemodynamic and neurologic outcomes were assessed after 5 minutes no flow asphyxial cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. Comparison was made to injury patterns observed after human asphyxial cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In rats, cardiac output (20 ± 10 vs 45 ± 9 mL/min) and pH were lower and lactate higher (9.5 ± 1.0 vs 6.4 ± 1.3 mmol/L) after return of spontaneous circulation from ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest versus asphyxial cardiac arrest (all p < 0.01). Asphyxial cardiac arrest resulted in greater early neurologic deficits, 7-day neuronal loss, and reduced freezing time (memory) after conditioned fear (all p < 0.05). Brain antioxidant reserves were more depleted following asphyxial cardiac arrest. In adjusted analyses, human ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest was associated with greater cardiovascular injury based on peak troponin (7.8 ng/mL [0.8-57 ng/mL] vs 0.3 ng/mL [0.0-1.5 ng/mL]) and ejection fraction by echocardiography (20% vs 55%; all p < 0.0001), whereas asphyxial cardiac arrest was associated with worse early neurologic injury and poor functional outcome at hospital discharge (n = 46 [18%] vs 102 [44%]; p < 0.0001). Most ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest deaths (54%) were the result of cardiovascular instability, whereas most asphyxial cardiac arrest deaths (75%) resulted from neurologic injury (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In transcending rat and human studies, we find a consistent phenotype of heart and brain injury after cardiac arrest based on etiology: ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest produces worse cardiovascular dysfunction, whereas asphyxial cardiac arrest produces worsened neurologic injury associated with greater oxidative stress.
OBJECTIVES:Cardiac arrest etiology may be an important source of between-patient heterogeneity, but the impact of etiology on organ injury is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that asphyxial cardiac arrest results in greater neurologic injury than cardiac etiology cardiac arrest (ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest), whereas ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest results in greater cardiovascular dysfunction after return of spontaneous circulation. DESIGN: Prospective observational human and randomized animal study. SETTING: University laboratory and ICUs. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-three cardiac arrestpatients admitted to ICU. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five male Sprague-Dawley rats. INTERVENTIONS: We examined neurologic and cardiovascular injury in Isoflurane-anesthetized ratcardiac arrest models matched by ischemic time. Hemodynamic and neurologic outcomes were assessed after 5 minutes no flow asphyxial cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. Comparison was made to injury patterns observed after humanasphyxial cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In rats, cardiac output (20 ± 10 vs 45 ± 9 mL/min) and pH were lower and lactate higher (9.5 ± 1.0 vs 6.4 ± 1.3 mmol/L) after return of spontaneous circulation from ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest versus asphyxial cardiac arrest (all p < 0.01). Asphyxial cardiac arrest resulted in greater early neurologic deficits, 7-day neuronal loss, and reduced freezing time (memory) after conditioned fear (all p < 0.05). Brain antioxidant reserves were more depleted following asphyxial cardiac arrest. In adjusted analyses, humanventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest was associated with greater cardiovascular injury based on peak troponin (7.8 ng/mL [0.8-57 ng/mL] vs 0.3 ng/mL [0.0-1.5 ng/mL]) and ejection fraction by echocardiography (20% vs 55%; all p < 0.0001), whereas asphyxial cardiac arrest was associated with worse early neurologic injury and poor functional outcome at hospital discharge (n = 46 [18%] vs 102 [44%]; p < 0.0001). Most ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest deaths (54%) were the result of cardiovascular instability, whereas most asphyxial cardiac arrest deaths (75%) resulted from neurologic injury (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In transcending rat and human studies, we find a consistent phenotype of heart and brain injury after cardiac arrest based on etiology: ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest produces worse cardiovascular dysfunction, whereas asphyxial cardiac arrest produces worsened neurologic injury associated with greater oxidative stress.
Authors: Thomas Uray; Florian B Mayr; James Fitzgibbon; Jon C Rittenberger; Clifton W Callaway; Tomas Drabek; Anthony Fabio; Derek C Angus; Patrick M Kochanek; Cameron Dezfulian Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Clifton W Callaway; Michael W Donnino; Ericka L Fink; Romergryko G Geocadin; Eyal Golan; Karl B Kern; Marion Leary; William J Meurer; Mary Ann Peberdy; Trevonne M Thompson; Janice L Zimmerman Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Kamohara; M H Weil; W Tang; S Sun; H Yamaguchi; K Klouche; J Bisera Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Cameron Dezfulian; Elizabeth Kenny; Andrew Lamade; Amalea Misse; Nicholas Krehel; Claudette St Croix; Eric E Kelley; Travis C Jackson; Thomas Uray; Justin Rackley; Patrick M Kochanek; Robert S B Clark; Hulya Bayir Journal: J Neurochem Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 5.372
Authors: Francis Kim; Graham Nichol; Charles Maynard; Al Hallstrom; Peter J Kudenchuk; Thomas Rea; Michael K Copass; David Carlbom; Steven Deem; W T Longstreth; Michele Olsufka; Leonard A Cobb Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Jonathan Elmer; Katharyn L Flickinger; Maighdlin W Anderson; Allison C Koller; Matthew L Sundermann; Cameron Dezfulian; David O Okonkwo; Lori A Shutter; David D Salcido; Clifton W Callaway; James J Menegazzi Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Thomas Uray; Philip E Empey; Tomas Drabek; Jason P Stezoski; Keri Janesko-Feldman; Travis Jackson; Robert H Garman; Francis Kim; Patrick M Kochanek; Cameron Dezfulian Journal: Nitric Oxide Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 4.427
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
Authors: Thomas Uray; Cameron Dezfulian; Abigail A Palmer; Kristin M Miner; Rehana K Leak; Jason P Stezoski; Keri Janesko-Feldman; Patrick M Kochanek; Tomas Drabek Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Hilde Karlsen; Harald Arne Bergan; Per Steinar Halvorsen; Kjetil Sunde; Eirik Qvigstad; Geir Øystein Andersen; Jan Frederik Bugge; Theresa Mariero Olasveengen Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2019-12-04
Authors: Andreas Janata; Ingrid Am Magnet; Kristin L Schreiber; Caleb D Wilson; Jason P Stezoski; Keri Janesko-Feldman; Patrick M Kochanek; Tomas Drabek Journal: World J Crit Care Med Date: 2019-11-19