| Literature DB >> 31763408 |
Maenia Scarpino1,2, Francesco Lolli3, Giovanni Lanzo1, Riccardo Carrai1,2, Maddalena Spalletti1, Franco Valzania4, Maria Lombardi5, Daniela Audenino6, Maria Grazia Celani7, Alfonso Marrelli8, Sara Contardi9, Adriano Peris10, Aldo Amantini1,2, Claudio Sandroni11, Antonello Grippo1,2.
Abstract
The data presented here are related to our research article entitled "Neurophysiology and neuroimaging accurately predict poor neurological outcome within 24 hours after cardiac arrest: a prospective multicentre prognostication study (ProNeCA)" [1]. We report a secondary analysis on the ability of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), brain computed tomography (CT) and electroencephalography (EEG) to predict poor neurological outcome at 6 months in 346 patients who were comatose after cardiac arrest. Differently from the related research article, here we included cerebral performance category (CPC) 3 among poor outcomes, so that the outcomes are dichotomised as CPC 1-2 (absent to mild neurological disability: good outcome) vs. CPC 3-5 (severe neurological disability, persistent vegetative state, or death: poor outcome). The accuracy of the index tests was recalculated accordingly. A bilaterally absent/absent-pathological amplitude (AA/AP) N20 SEPs wave, a Grey Matter/White Matter (GM/WM) ratio <1.21 on brain CT and an isoelectric or burst suppression EEG predicted poor outcome with 49.6%, 42.2% and 29.8% sensitivity, respectively, and 100% specificity. The distribution of positive results of the three predictors did not overlap completely in the population of patients with poor outcome, so that when combining them the overall sensitivity raised to 61.2%.Entities:
Keywords: Anoxia-ischemia; Brain; Cardiac arrest; Coma; Computed tomography; Electroencephalogram; Prognosis; Somatosensory evoked potentials
Year: 2019 PMID: 31763408 PMCID: PMC6864134 DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104755
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Data Brief ISSN: 2352-3409
Characteristics of the study population.
| Patient Included n = 346 | |
|---|---|
| 68 (48–70) | |
| 130 (37) | |
| 273 (78) | |
| 282 (82) | |
| 15 (9–28) | |
| VF/pVT | 144 (42) |
| PEA | 87 (25) |
| Asystole | 71 (21) |
| Unknown | 44 (12) |
| Absent | 147 (42) |
| Present | 189 (55) |
| Unknown | 10 (3) |
| 3 (3–8) | |
| No | 207 (60) |
| 34 °C | 123 (35) |
| 36 °C | 16 (5) |
| CPC 1 | 11 (3) |
| CPC 2 | 23 (7) |
| CPC 3 | 62 (18) |
| CPC 4 | 136 (39) |
| CPC 5 | 114 (33) |
| CPC 1 | 43 (12) |
| CPC 2 | 45 (13) |
| CPC 3 | 35 (10) |
| CPC 4 | 68 (20) |
| CPC 5 | 155 (45) |
Data are presented as count (percentage) or median (interquartile range; range for GCS score). CPC, Cerebral Performance Categories; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; ICU, intensive care unit; PEA, pulseless electrical activity; pVT, pulseless ventricular tachycardia; VF, ventricular Fibrillation; TTM, Targeted Temperature Management.
Fig. 1a-c. ROC curves showing the accuracy in prediction of poor prognosis for SEP patterns (a) GM/WM ratio on brain CT (b) and EEG patterns (c). Cerebral outcome categories 3, 4 and 5 correspond to poor outcome. The x axis shows the sensitivity of the tests, ranging from 0 to 1.0 (0–100%), while the y axis shows the percentage of false positive results (100% - specificity).
Fig. 2Scatterplot showing the distribution of GM/WM ratio according to the Cerebral Outcome Categories (CPC). Closed circles correspond to individual patient data.
Accuracy of index tests (single and in combination) for prediction of poor (CPC 3-4-5) outcome at 6 months.
| Index test | TP | FP | TN | FN | Sensitivity % (95%CI) | False positive rate % (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 2 SEPs | 128 | 0 | 88 | 130 | 49.6 (43.3–55.8) | 0 (0–4) |
| GM/WM ratio < 1.21 on brain CT | 109 | 0 | 88 | 149 | 42.2 (36.1–48.5) | 0 (0–4) |
| Malignant EEG | 77 | 0 | 88 | 181 | 29.8 (24.3–35.8) | 0 (0–4) |
| Grade 2 SEPs or GW/WM ratio < 1.21 | 157 | 0 | 88 | 101 | 60.8 (54.6–66.8) | 0 (0–4) |
| Malignant EEG or GW/WM ratio < 1.21 | 116 | 0 | 88 | 142 | 44.9 (38.7–51.2) | 0 (0–4) |
| Grade 2 SEPs or Malignant EEG | 129 | 0 | 88 | 129 | 50.0 (43.7–56.2) | 0 (0–4) |
| At least one test predicting poor outcome | 158 | 0 | 88 | 100 | 61.2 (55.0–67.2) | 0 (0–4) |
CI: Confidence Interval; CT: computed tomography; EEG: Electroencephalogram; GW/WM: Gray Matter/White Matter; SEPs: Somatosensory Evoked Potentials.
FN, false negative; FP, false positive; TN, true negative; TP, true positive.
Fig. 3Venn diagram showing the distribution of index test results among true positives. Only 21 patients were detected by all three tests. The true positives identified by only one test were 41/128, 28/116, and 1/36 for SEPs, CT, and EEG, respectively.
Specifications Table
| Subject area | |
| More specific subject area | |
| Type of data | |
| How data was acquired | |
| Data format | |
| Experimental factors | |
| Experimental features | |
| Data source location | |
| Data accessibility | |
| Related research article |
A description of which SEP, EEG and brain CT features are relevant for neurological prognostication in CA comatose surviving patients and a description of the statistical analysis. A statistical analysis including patients with severe disability (CPC 3) in the poor outcome group (a neurological outcome aggregation similar to most of previous published data). This aggregation allows a generalizability of the data. These data has been derived from a population of patients where withdrawal of life sustaining treatment (WLST) based on prognostication of poor neurological outcome was not performed, except when brain death occurred. In most of previous prognostication data censoring from WLST, which is often based on the same predictors under investigation, has an important confounding effect. |