| Literature DB >> 31727121 |
Kazuhiro Sugiyama1, Masamichi Takahashi2, Kazuki Miyazaki3, Takuto Ishida3, Mioko Kobayashi3, Yuichi Hamabe3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported left ventricular wall findings in contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). This study examined left ventricular wall CE-CT findings after ECPR and evaluated the association between these findings and the results of coronary angiography and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Hypoenhancement; Left ventricular wall; Non-electrocardiography-gated computed tomography
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31727121 PMCID: PMC6854640 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-019-2624-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Fig. 1Classification of left ventricular wall patterns on non-ECG-gated CE-CT. a Homogeneously enhanced (HE): the left ventricular wall is homogeneously enhanced. b Segmental defect (SD): the left ventricular wall is not segmentally enhanced according to coronary artery territory. c Total defect (TD): more than 75% of the wall in the entire left ventricle is not enhanced. d Others: in this patient, the enhancement defect is limited to the subendomyocardial wall in the entire left ventricle. On the color map, the well-enhanced region within the normal range of CT values is displayed as light green, the non-enhanced or hypoenhanced region below the normal range as red, and the region above the normal range as light yellow
Fig. 2Flow chart of patient selection. OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; ECPR, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CAG, coronary angiography; CE-CT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography; ECG, electrocardiography; HE, homogeneously enhanced; SD, segmental defect; TD, total defect
Patient characteristics in each pattern
| All patients, | HE, | SD, | TD, | Other, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years)* | 59 (48–65) | 54 (37–62) | 59 (53–64) | 54 (50–63) | 62 (49–69) | 0.23 |
| Male, | 65 (88%) | 15 (79%) | 30 (91%) | 11 (100%) | 9 (82%) | 0.31 |
| Witnessed collapse, | 65 (88%) | 17 (90%) | 27 (82%) | 11 (100%) | 10 (91%) | 0.43 |
| Bystander CPR, | 40 (54%) | 8 (42%) | 20 (61%) | 6 (55%) | 6 (55%) | 0.65 |
| Initial shockable rhythm, | 50 (68%) | 15 (79%) | 18 (55%) | 9 (82%) | 8 (73%) | 0.51 |
| Time from collapse to initiation of ECMO flow (min)* | 45 (40–55) | 54 (49–61) | 44 (36–53) | 45 (42–46) | 45 (38–66) | 0.37 |
| Lactate level at hospital arrival (mmol/L)* | 14.0 (10.7–16.0) | 14.0 (10.9–16.0) | 12.6 (8.9–16.0) | 14.0 (10.8–16.0) | 14.2 (11.6–15.8) | 0.89 |
| Etiology of cardiac arrest | < 0.01 | |||||
| Acute coronary syndrome, | 43 (58%) | 1 (5%) | 31 (94%) | 6 (55%) | 5 (45%) | |
| Other cardiac etiologies, | 23 (31%) | 12 (63%) | 2 (6%) | 4 (36%) | 5 (45%) | |
| Non-cardiac etiologies, | 8 (11%) | 6 (32%) | 0 | 1 (9%) | 1 (9%) |
HE homogeneously enhanced, SD segmental defect, TD total defect, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
*Median (interquartile range)
Fig. 3Successful weaning from ECMO and survival to hospital discharge according to each left ventricular wall pattern. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; HE, homogeneously enhanced; SD, segmental defect; TD, total defect
Significant stenosis on coronary angiography in each pattern
| All patients. | HE, | SD, | TD, | Other, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant stenosis of the coronary artery, | 42 (57%) | 2 (11%) | 31 (94%) | 5 (45%) | 4 (36%) |
| One-vessel disease, | 17 (23%) | 2 (11%) | 13 (39%) | 1 (9%) | 1 (9%) |
| Two-vessel disease, | 19 (26%) | 0 | 14 (42%) | 3 (27%) | 2 (18%) |
| Three-vessel disease, | 6 (8%) | 0 | 4 (12%) | 1 (9%) | 1 (9%) |
| Spasm of the coronary artery, | 2 (3%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (9%) | 1 (9%) |
HE homogeneously enhanced, SD segmental defect, TD total defect
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUROC of each pattern for predicting the result of coronary angiography
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | AUROC (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction of the presence of significant stenosis | |||||
| SD | 74 (58–86) | 94 (79–99) | 94 (80–99) | 73 (57–86) | 0.84 (0.76–0.92) |
| TD | 12 (4–26) | 81 (64–93) | 46 (17–77) | 41 (29–54) | 0.47 (0.38–0.55) |
| Other | 10 (3–23) | 78 (60–91) | 36 (11–69) | 40 (28–53) | 0.44 (0.35–0.52) |
| Prediction of the absence of significant stenosis | |||||
| HE | 53 (35–71) | 95 (84–99) | 90 (67–99) | 73 (59–84) | 0.74 (0.65–0.84) |
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, AUROC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, HE homogenously enhanced, SD segmental defect, TD total defect, CI confidence interval