BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether postanoxic cortical and subcortical myoclonus are distinct entities with different prognoses. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 604 adult survivors of cardiac arrest over 8.5 years, we identified 111 (18%) patients with myoclonus. Basic demographics and clinical characteristics of myoclonus were collected. EEG reports, and, when available, raw video EEG, were reviewed, and all findings adjudicated by 3 authors blinded to outcomes. Myoclonus was classified as cortical if there was a preceding, time-locked electrographic correlate and otherwise as subcortical. Outcome at discharge was determined using Cerebral Performance Category. RESULTS: Patients with myoclonus had longer arrests with less favorable characteristics compared to patients without myoclonus. Cortical myoclonus occurred twice as often as subcortical myoclonus (59% vs 23%, respectively). Clinical characteristics during hospitalization did not distinguish the two. Rates of electrographic seizures were higher in patients with cortical myoclonus (43%, vs 8% with subcortical). Survival to discharge was worse for patients with myoclonus compared to those without (26% vs 39%, respectively), but did not differ between subcortical and cortical myoclonus (24% and 26%, respectively). Patients with cortical myoclonus were more likely to be discharged in a comatose state than those with subcortical myoclonus (82% vs 33%, respectively). Among survivors, good functional outcome at discharge was equally possible between those with cortical and subcortical myoclonus (12% and 16%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cortical and subcortical myoclonus are seen in every sixth patient with cardiac arrest and cannot be distinguished using clinical criteria. Either condition may have good functional outcomes.
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether postanoxic cortical and subcortical myoclonus are distinct entities with different prognoses. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 604 adult survivors of cardiac arrest over 8.5 years, we identified 111 (18%) patients with myoclonus. Basic demographics and clinical characteristics of myoclonus were collected. EEG reports, and, when available, raw video EEG, were reviewed, and all findings adjudicated by 3 authors blinded to outcomes. Myoclonus was classified as cortical if there was a preceding, time-locked electrographic correlate and otherwise as subcortical. Outcome at discharge was determined using Cerebral Performance Category. RESULTS: Patients with myoclonus had longer arrests with less favorable characteristics compared to patients without myoclonus. Cortical myoclonus occurred twice as often as subcortical myoclonus (59% vs 23%, respectively). Clinical characteristics during hospitalization did not distinguish the two. Rates of electrographic seizures were higher in patients with cortical myoclonus (43%, vs 8% with subcortical). Survival to discharge was worse for patients with myoclonus compared to those without (26% vs 39%, respectively), but did not differ between subcortical and cortical myoclonus (24% and 26%, respectively). Patients with cortical myoclonus were more likely to be discharged in a comatose state than those with subcortical myoclonus (82% vs 33%, respectively). Among survivors, good functional outcome at discharge was equally possible between those with cortical and subcortical myoclonus (12% and 16%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cortical and subcortical myoclonus are seen in every sixth patient with cardiac arrest and cannot be distinguished using clinical criteria. Either condition may have good functional outcomes.
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: Jason M Lucas; Michael N Cocchi; Justin Salciccioli; Jessica A Stanbridge; Romergryko G Geocadin; Susan T Herman; Michael W Donnino Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: David B Seder; Kjetil Sunde; Sten Rubertsson; Michael Mooney; Pascal Stammet; Richard R Riker; Karl B Kern; Barbara Unger; Tobias Cronberg; John Dziodzio; Niklas Nielsen Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Cesar Torres; Tom P Aufderheide; Michael A Austin; Clifton W Callaway; Eyal Golan; Heather Herren; Jamie Jasti; Peter J Kudenchuk; Damon C Scales; Dion Stub; Derek K Richardson; Dana M Zive Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Frank Thömke; Jürgen J Marx; Oliver Sauer; Thomas Hundsberger; Stefan Hägele; Jascha Wiechelt; Sacha L Weilemann Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Alexandre Gramfort; Martin Luessi; Eric Larson; Denis A Engemann; Daniel Strohmeier; Christian Brodbeck; Roman Goj; Mainak Jas; Teon Brooks; Lauri Parkkonen; Matti Hämäläinen Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2013-12-26 Impact factor: 4.677
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: Jasmeet Soar; Katherine M Berg; Lars W Andersen; Bernd W Böttiger; Sofia Cacciola; Clifton W Callaway; Keith Couper; Tobias Cronberg; Sonia D'Arrigo; Charles D Deakin; Michael W Donnino; Ian R Drennan; Asger Granfeldt; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Mathias J Holmberg; Cindy H Hsu; Marlijn Kamps; Szymon Musiol; Kevin J Nation; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Brian J O'Neil; Quentin Otto; Edison Ferreira de Paiva; Michael J A Parr; Joshua C Reynolds; Claudio Sandroni; Barnaby R Scholefield; Markus B Skrifvars; Tzong-Luen Wang; Wolfgang A Wetsch; Joyce Yeung; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Michelle Welsford; Mary Fran Hazinski; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262