Edilberto Amorim1,2, Mohammad M Ghassemi3, Jong W Lee4, David M Greer5, Peter W Kaplan6, Andrew J Cole1, Sydney S Cash1, Matthew T Bianchi1, M Brandon Westover1. 1. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. 3. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. 4. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 6. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Absence of somatosensory evoked potentials is considered a nearly perfect predictor of poor outcome after cardiac arrest. However, reports of good outcomes despite absent somatosensory evoked potentials and high rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies have raised concerns that estimates of the prognostic value of absent somatosensory evoked potentials may be biased by self-fulfilling prophecies. We aimed to develop an unbiased estimate of the false positive rate of absent somatosensory evoked potentials as a predictor of poor outcome after cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCES: PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: We selected 35 studies in cardiac arrest prognostication that reported somatosensory evoked potentials. DATA EXTRACTION: In each study, we identified rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and good outcomes despite absent somatosensory evoked potentials. We appraised studies for potential biases using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Using these data, we developed a statistical model to estimate the false positive rate of absent somatosensory evoked potentials adjusted for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies rate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two-thousand one-hundred thirty-three subjects underwent somatosensory evoked potential testing. Five-hundred ninety-four had absent somatosensory evoked potentials; of these, 14 had good functional outcomes. The rate of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies for subjects with absent somatosensory evoked potential could be estimated in 14 of the 35 studies (mean 80%, median 100%). The false positive rate for absent somatosensory evoked potential in predicting poor neurologic outcome, adjusted for a withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies rate of 80%, is 7.7% (95% CI, 4-13%). CONCLUSIONS: Absent cortical somatosensory evoked potentials do not infallibly predict poor outcome in patients with coma following cardiac arrest. The chances of survival in subjects with absent somatosensory evoked potentials, though low, may be substantially higher than generally believed.
OBJECTIVES: Absence of somatosensory evoked potentials is considered a nearly perfect predictor of poor outcome after cardiac arrest. However, reports of good outcomes despite absent somatosensory evoked potentials and high rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies have raised concerns that estimates of the prognostic value of absent somatosensory evoked potentials may be biased by self-fulfilling prophecies. We aimed to develop an unbiased estimate of the false positive rate of absent somatosensory evoked potentials as a predictor of poor outcome after cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCES: PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: We selected 35 studies in cardiac arrest prognostication that reported somatosensory evoked potentials. DATA EXTRACTION: In each study, we identified rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and good outcomes despite absent somatosensory evoked potentials. We appraised studies for potential biases using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Using these data, we developed a statistical model to estimate the false positive rate of absent somatosensory evoked potentials adjusted for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies rate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two-thousand one-hundred thirty-three subjects underwent somatosensory evoked potential testing. Five-hundred ninety-four had absent somatosensory evoked potentials; of these, 14 had good functional outcomes. The rate of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies for subjects with absent somatosensory evoked potential could be estimated in 14 of the 35 studies (mean 80%, median 100%). The false positive rate for absent somatosensory evoked potential in predicting poor neurologic outcome, adjusted for a withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies rate of 80%, is 7.7% (95% CI, 4-13%). CONCLUSIONS: Absent cortical somatosensory evoked potentials do not infallibly predict poor outcome in patients with coma following cardiac arrest. The chances of survival in subjects with absent somatosensory evoked potentials, though low, may be substantially higher than generally believed.
Authors: Niklas Nielsen; Jørn Wetterslev; Tobias Cronberg; David Erlinge; Yvan Gasche; Christian Hassager; Janneke Horn; Jan Hovdenes; Jesper Kjaergaard; Michael Kuiper; Tommaso Pellis; Pascal Stammet; Michael Wanscher; Matt P Wise; Anders Åneman; Nawaf Al-Subaie; Søren Boesgaard; John Bro-Jeppesen; Iole Brunetti; Jan Frederik Bugge; Christopher D Hingston; Nicole P Juffermans; Matty Koopmans; Lars Køber; Jørund Langørgen; Gisela Lilja; Jacob Eifer Møller; Malin Rundgren; Christian Rylander; Ondrej Smid; Christophe Werer; Per Winkel; Hans Friberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M J A Kamps; J Horn; M Oddo; J E Fugate; C Storm; T Cronberg; C A Wijman; O Wu; J M Binnekade; C W E Hoedemaekers Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Aline Bouwes; Jan M Binnekade; Michael A Kuiper; Frank H Bosch; Durk F Zandstra; Arnoud C Toornvliet; Hazra S Biemond; Bas M Kors; Johannes H T M Koelman; Marcel M Verbeek; Henry C Weinstein; Albert Hijdra; Janneke Horn Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 10.422
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: Michael Huntgeburth; Christoph Adler; Stephan Rosenkranz; Carsten Zobel; Walter F Haupt; Christian Dohmen; Hannes Reuter Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Edilberto Amorim; Jon C Rittenberger; Julia J Zheng; M Brandon Westover; Maria E Baldwin; Clifton W Callaway; Alexandra Popescu Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: E G J Zandbergen; A Hijdra; J H T M Koelman; A A M Hart; P E Vos; M M Verbeek; R J de Haan Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jennifer E Fugate; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Jay Mandrekar; Daniel O Claassen; Edward M Manno; Roger D White; Malcolm R Bell; Alejandro A Rabinstein Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: A Bouwes; J M Binnekade; D F Zandstra; J H T M Koelman; I N van Schaik; A Hijdra; J Horn Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Edilberto Amorim; Shirley S Mo; Sebastian Palacios; Mohammad M Ghassemi; Wei-Hung Weng; Sydney S Cash; Matthew T Bianchi; M Brandon Westover Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 9.910
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: Tom P Aufderheide; Rajat Kalra; Marinos Kosmopoulos; Jason A Bartos; Demetris Yannopoulos Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2021-02-20 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Astrid B Glimmerveen; Hanneke M Keijzer; Barry J Ruijter; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Michel J A M van Putten; Jeannette Hofmeijer Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Marion Moseby-Knappe; Erik Westhall; Sofia Backman; Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren; Irina Dragancea; Anna Lybeck; Hans Friberg; Pascal Stammet; Gisela Lilja; Janneke Horn; Jesper Kjaergaard; Christian Rylander; Christian Hassager; Susann Ullén; Niklas Nielsen; Tobias Cronberg Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Patrick M Honore; Leonel Barreto Gutierrez; Luc Kugener; Sebastien Redant; Rachid Attou; Andrea Gallerani; David De Bels Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 9.097