| Literature DB >> 31156541 |
Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö1,2, Caroline Lindblad2, Eric Peter Thelin2,3, Jiri Bartek1,2,4,5, Marko Sallisalmi6, Adrian Elmi-Terander1,2, Mikael Svensson1,2, Bo-Michael Bellander1,2, Lars Mikael Broman6,7.
Abstract
Introduction: Intracranial lesion development is a recognized complication in adults treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and is associated with increased mortality. As neurological assessment during ECMO treatment remains challenging, protein biomarkers of cerebral injury could provide an opportunity to detect intracranial lesion development at an early stage. The aim of this study was to determine if serially sampled S100B could be used to detect intracranial lesion development during ECMO treatment.Entities:
Keywords: ECMO; S100B; brain injury; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; intracranial hemorrhage; intracranial lesion; ischemic stroke
Year: 2019 PMID: 31156541 PMCID: PMC6532588 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Patient demographics.
| Male sex | 14 (48) | 6 (50) | 2 (29) | 6 (60) |
| Age | N/A | 50.4 ± 11 | 9.1 ± 5.3 | N/A |
| Cardiopulmonary resuscitation preceding ECMO | 8 (28) | 1 (8) | 3 (43) | 4 (40) |
| VA ECMO | 22 (76) | 8 (67) | 5 (71) | 9 (90) |
| VV to VA conversion | 3 (10) | 1 (8) | 1 (14) | 1 (10) |
| VA to VV conversion | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | 1 (14) | 0 (0) |
| Length of ECMO treatment [hours (IQR)] | 128 (76–336) | 208 (94–417) | 115 (80–461) | 128 (84–150) |
| Pre-diagnostic symptom(s) | 9 (31) | 6 (50) | 1 (14) | 2 (20) |
| Intracranial lesion (any type) | 15 (52) | 7 (58) | 4 (57) | 4 (40) |
| Type of intracranial lesion | ICH only: 7 (24) | ICH only: 4 (33) | ICH only: 2 (29) | ICH only: 1 (10) |
| S100B (μg/L) (grand median) | 0.49 (0.28–1.2) | 0.80 (0.30–1.5) | 0.42 (0.30–0.92) | 0.40 (0.27–0.58) |
| Mortality | 8 (28) | 5 (42) | 1 (14) | 2 (20) |
Data is depicted as mean (SD) or median (IQR), if continuous. Categorical data is depicted as count (%). Of note, since the number of S100B measurements per patient varied, each individual does not contribute equal amount of data for the calculations of S100B. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; VA, venoarterial; VV, venovenous.
Figure 1Schematic overview of patient inclusion and outcome. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; CT, computerized tomography.
Figure 2Graphical depiction of S100B in ECMO patients. The distribution of S100B values in ECMO patients subcategorized on intracranial lesion is shown (A). Overall, ECMO patients that suffered an intracranial lesion seemed to have higher S100B values. In (B), S100B is depicted longitudinally and subdivided similarly to (A). The smoothened line indicates lowess curves and the shaded area surrounding it indicates confidence intervals. ECMO patients that suffer an intracranial lesion have higher S100B values during the first week on ECMO. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; lowess, locally weighted scatterplot smoother.
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristics curve for S100B and intracranial lesions. Time since ECMO initiation was re-categorized into defined time intervals, during which one patient contributed one S100B value. One ROC curve was generated for each time interval, using intracranial lesion as dependent variable and S100B values during the time interval as independent variable. Here, the time interval of 24–48 h from ECMO initiation is depicted, demonstrating that S100B conferred an AUC value of 0.812 (CI: 0.628–0.997) meaning that S100B is a significant predictor of intracranial lesion among ECMO patients at this time point. Threshold analysis yielded a cut-off level for S100B of 0.69. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; CI, confidence interval; ROC, receiver operating characteristics.
Figure 4Timing of optimal S100B sampling to predict intracranial lesion development. Timing of optimal S100B sampling was determined using a sliding window approach, using a logistic regression approach with intracranial lesion as binary outcome and S100B as independent predictor. As shown in (A), there were certain time points that conferred a high Nagelkerke's pseudo-R2, indicating that there might be time points of particular interest for S100B sampling. In (B) the distribution of S100B samples across the retrospective study population is shown, with the y-axis representing the number (n) of S100B samples within each time interval (x). IQR, interquartile range.
Cox proportional hazards models for different types of intracranial lesions.
| 1 | Intracranial lesion | Log10-S100B | 6.08 | 2.73–13.57 | <0.001 | 0.007 | <0.001 |
| 2 | ICH | Log10-S100B | 10.18 | 3.82–27.10 | <0.001 | 0.02 | <0.001 |
| 3 | Ischemia | Log10-S100B | 5.74 | 1.65–19.98 | 0.006 | 0.05 | 0.006 |
Three different models comprising all patients but with different dependent variables are shown. In all analyses, log10-transformed S100B was the independent variable. Overall, all models were significant, which can be assessed using the Robust Log Rank Test and the Wald Score, which were used since they do not assume independence of clustered observations. S100B emanated as a significant predictor in Model #1–3. The interpretation of the HR in the case of a continuous variable, e.g., S100B, is that a one-unit increase is associated with a 6 times increased risk for any intracranial lesion, 10 times increased risk for ICH, and a 5.7 times increased risk for ischemic events. CI, confidence interval; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 5Subgroup analysis. We chose a subset of patients that had undergone a CT scan following a S100B peak and conducted a Cox proportional hazards analyses on these. We chose patients by eyeballing each patient's individual S100B trajectory, subcategorized by radiology examination and type of intracranial lesion. Patients that had not undergone any CT scan following a S100B peak were excluded, of which one representative patient is shown in (A). (B) shows a patient that was included for subgroup analysis, since the patient had a secondary S100B peak and subsequently underwent a CT scan. CT, computerized tomography.
Cox proportional hazards models in a subgroup analysis.
| 1 | Intracranial lesion | Log10-S100B | 4.01 | 1.78–9.02 | <0.001 | 0.03 | <0.001 |
| 2 | ICH | Log10-S100B | 7.05 | 2.54–19.56 | <0.001 | 0.03 | <0.001 |
| 3 | Ischemia | Log10-S100B | 3.72 | 0.99–14.05 | 0.052 | 0.11 | 0.052 |
Patients included in the subgroup analyses had all undergone a CT scan following a S100B peak. Similarly, to .