Literature DB >> 31763408

Neurophysiological and neuroradiological test for early poor outcome (Cerebral Performance Categories 3-5) prediction after cardiac arrest: Prospective multicentre prognostication data.

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%.
© 2019 The Authors.

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


Specifications Table 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.

Data

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the 346 enrolled patients. Based on ROC curve analysis (Fig. 1a–c), the optimal cut-off for SEPs, EEG, and brain CT that maximised sensitivity for poor outcome prediction while maintaining 100% specificity was identified, and index test data were dichotomised accordingly. SEP patterns were dichotomised as grade 2 (AA-AP) vs. grade 1 (NN-NP-PP). EEG patterns were dichotomised as malignant (isoelectric, burst-suppression) vs. non-malignant (continuous, nearly continuous, discontinuous, epileptic discharges, low-voltage, and suppression), whereas for brain CT a threshold of <1.21 of GM/WM ratio was identified (Fig. 2). Grade 2 SEP predicted poor outcome with 49.6% sensitivity and 100% (CI 43.3–55.8) specificity (AUC = 0.86; CI 0.82–0.89). A GM/WM ratio <1.21 predicted poor outcome with 42.2% sensitivity and 100% (CI 36.1–48.5) specificity (AUC = 0.78; CI 0.73–0.83). The cut-off ensuring 100% specificity for EEG was identified as malignant pattern (isoelectric, burst suppression) vs. non-malignant patterns (continuous, nearly continuous, discontinuous, epileptic discharges, low-voltage, suppression). Malignant patterns predicted poor outcome with 29.8% (CI 24.3–35.8) sensitivity and 100% specificity (AUC = 0.90; CI 0.86–0.93). Data are reported in Table 2. As a further analysis we combined the data of the three tests and calculated the cumulative proportion of patients who were correctly identified as having poor outcome (CPC 3–5) when at least one among the three investigated indices reached the threshold for 100% specificity. According to our data, 166 patients had at least one poor prognostic criterion.
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population.

Patient Included n = 346
Age, years68 (48–70)
Gender, female130 (37)
Out-of-hospital273 (78)
Witnessed282 (82)
CA duration (min)15 (9–28)
Initial rhythm
 VF/pVT144 (42)
 PEA87 (25)
 Asystole71 (21)
 Unknown44 (12)
Pupillary reflex at neurophysiological evaluation
 Absent147 (42)
 Present189 (55)
 Unknown10 (3)
GCS at ICU admission3 (3–8)
TTM
 No207 (60)
 34 °C123 (35)
 36 °C16 (5)
CPC at hospital discharge
 CPC 111 (3)
 CPC 223 (7)
 CPC 362 (18)
 CPC 4136 (39)
 CPC 5114 (33)
CPC at 6 months
 CPC 143 (12)
 CPC 245 (13)
 CPC 335 (10)
 CPC 468 (20)
 CPC 5155 (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. 1

a-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. 2

Scatterplot showing the distribution of GM/WM ratio according to the Cerebral Outcome Categories (CPC). Closed circles correspond to individual patient data.

Table 2

Accuracy of index tests (single and in combination) for prediction of poor (CPC 3-4-5) outcome at 6 months.

Index testTPFPTNFNSensitivity % (95%CI)False positive rate % (95%CI)
Single test prediction
Grade 2 SEPs12808813049.6 (43.3–55.8)0 (0–4)
GM/WM ratio < 1.21 on brain CT10908814942.2 (36.1–48.5)0 (0–4)
Malignant EEG7708818129.8 (24.3–35.8)0 (0–4)
Combination of two tests
Grade 2 SEPs or GW/WM ratio < 1.2115708810160.8 (54.6–66.8)0 (0–4)
Malignant EEG or GW/WM ratio < 1.2111608814244.9 (38.7–51.2)0 (0–4)
Grade 2 SEPs or Malignant EEG12908812950.0 (43.7–56.2)0 (0–4)
Combination of three tests
At least one test predicting poor outcome15808810061.2 (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.

Characteristics of the study population. 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. a-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). Scatterplot 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. 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. The distribution of positive data of different tests overlapped only partially in patients with poor outcome. Only 21 of these patients were detected by all three tests. In 41/128 patients with positive SEP data, in 28/116 patents with positive brain CT data, and in 1/36 patients with positive EEG data true positives were identified by only one test (Venn diagram in Fig. 3). Consequently, the cumulative sensitivity increased by adding the individual test sensitivities. When two tests were considered, if at least one of the patterns predicting poor outcome was present, the sensitivity increased from 49.6% (obtained with the best single performing test, SEPs), to 60.8% (obtained by the combination of SEPs and brain CT). When all three tests were considered, the sensitivity for poor prognosis increased to 61.2%, while maintaining 100% specificity.
Fig. 3

Venn 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.

Venn 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.

Experimental design, materials, and methods

Patient management

In all comatose patients included in the analysis, brain CT, EEG and SEPs were performed within 24 hours after CA. The data of these instrumental tests did not affect ongoing patient management. Patients were sedated using either propofol (range 1–2mg/Kg/h) or midazolam (range 0.03–0.1mg/Kg/h) as recommended. The choice of the targeted temperature management i.e., 34 °C vs. 36 °C was at the discretion of the participating centre [2].

Index tests

SEP analysis was based on the evaluation of the presence, amplitude [3]or absence of the cortical responses (N20/P25 complex) on both hemispheres [4]. We identified six SEP patterns: NN, NP, PP, AN, AP and AA, in which N stands for normal (N20/P25 amplitude is normal), P stands for pathological (N20/P25 amplitude is < 1.2μV or the difference between the two sides is greater than 50%) and A stands for absent if no reproducible cortical components could be identified in the presence of a lemniscal potential [5,6]. SEPs were elicited via stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist to an intensity of 4–5mA greater than that needed to evoke a muscular response. In the case of the use of neuromuscular blocking, Erb potential amplitude was used to estimate the intensity of the stimulation. Pulse duration was 0.2 m s and stimulus rate was 3 Hz. A portable digital 4-channel EPA apparatus was used. Recording stainless steel needle electrodes were placed at Erb's point (referred to contralateral Erb's point), spinous process CV7 (referred to the anterior neck) and C3 and C4 (referred to Fz and ipsilateral mastoid). At least two repetitions (averages of 300 responses) were needed to assess the reproducibility of waveforms. The analysis time was 100 m s and bandwidth was 5Hz–3 kHz. EEGs were classified according to the ACNS terminology for EEGs in critical care [7]. The “continuity” and the “voltage” of the background activity were the main parameters taken in to account for EEG classification. Thus, the main patterns identified were: continuous; nearly continuous; discontinuous; burst-suppression; suppression; epileptiform discharges, low voltage (voltage <20μV) and isoelectric. Isoelectric (voltage <2μV) recordings were identified, although the original classification did not distinguish them from suppressed activity (voltage <10μV) [8]. Brain CT prognostic power is based on the GM/WM ratio density. In particular in our analysis we performed density measurements limited to the basal ganglia level, according to previously reported method [[9], [10], [11]], as GM/WM ratio =(Caudate Nucleus + Putamen)/(Corpus Callosum + Posterior limb of the Internal Capsule). For further details regarding patient management, SEP and EEG recording and Brain CT acquisition refer to the related research article [1].

Ethical approval

The protocol was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of Tuscany (Ref OSS.15.009). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's authorized representative prior to the subject enrolment.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were reported as median and inter-quartile range (IQR), whereas categorical variables were reported as numbers and percentages. Normality of baseline distribution was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Pearson's chi-square and the Mann–Whitney U tests were used for comparing categorical and continuous variables, respectively. For these data, sensitivity and specificity of SEPs, EEG, and brain CT were calculated. In addition, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) are reported. When predicting poor outcome, maximising specificity is essential in order to avoid a falsely pessimistic prediction leading to treatment limitations in patients with a chance of neurological recovery [12,13]. Thus, data of the investigated predictors were dichotomised based on the value or category that ensured 100% specificity, as identified on the ROC curve. Both the individual and the combined prognostic accuracy of index tests have been investigated. We performed a tree-based analysis to identify the best combination of different predictors in order to maximise sensitivity for outcome prediction, and calculated the sensitivity of the possible combinations of two criteria indicating poor outcome with 100% specificity. Neurological status was determined using CPC at two follow-up points: at hospital discharge, looking at the chart review, and, for patients surviving at hospital discharge, at least 6 months after CA, by telephone interview [14,15]. A p-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using Wizard 1.9 version (Evan Miller, USA) and IBM-SPSS Statistics for Windows 25.0 version (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Specifications Table

Subject areaCardiac Arrest(CA)
More specific subject areaMultimodal Neurological Prognostication in comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA).
Type of dataQuantitative data of index tests, figures and tables
How data was acquiredBe-Plus Galileo for acquisition of EEG and SEP.
Data formatRaw data, continuous and categorical variables
Experimental factorsElectroencephalography (EEG) patterns classified according to the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) terminology; Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SEPs) classified according to the cortical responses on both hemispheres; Grey Matter/White Matter (GM/WM) ratio density on Brain Computed Tomography (CT).
Experimental featuresTests were performed within the first 24 hours after CA. The primary endpoint was neurological outcome at 6 months, measured using the Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC). Accuracy was measured using sensitivity, specificity and Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve where appropriate.
Data source locationItaly (Florence, Modena, Empoli, Reggio Emilia, L'Aquila, Perugia, Genoa).
Data accessibilitySummary data are available in this article. Excel data file is attached assupplementary material
Related research articleNeurophysiology and neuroimaging accurately predict poor neurological outcome within 24 hours after cardiac arrest: a prospective multicentre prognostication study (ProNeCA). Scarpino et al., Resuscitation. 2019, 143:115–123.
Value of the Data

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.

  13 in total

1.  COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in Adults: An Advisory Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.

Authors:  Kirstie Haywood; Laura Whitehead; Vinay M Nadkarni; Felix Achana; Stefanie Beesems; Bernd W Böttiger; Anne Brooks; Maaret Castrén; Marcus E H Ong; Mary Fran Hazinski; Rudolph W Koster; Gisela Lilja; John Long; Koenraad G Monsieurs; Peter T Morley; Laurie Morrison; Graham Nichol; Valentino Oriolo; Gustavo Saposnik; Michael Smyth; Ken Spearpoint; Barry Williams; Gavin D Perkins
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 5.262

2.  Neurophysiology and neuroimaging accurately predict poor neurological outcome within 24 hours after cardiac arrest: The ProNeCA prospective multicentre prognostication study.

Authors:  Maenia Scarpino; Francesco Lolli; Giovanni Lanzo; Riccardo Carrai; Maddalena Spalletti; Franco Valzania; Maria Lombardi; Daniela Audenino; Maria Grazia Celani; Alfonso Marrelli; Sara Contardi; Adriano Peris; Aldo Amantini; Claudio Sandroni; Antonello Grippo
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 5.262

3.  Early-SEPs' amplitude reduction is reliable for poor-outcome prediction after cardiac arrest?

Authors:  Riccardo Carrai; Maenia Scarpino; Francesco Lolli; Maddalena Spalletti; Giovanni Lanzo; Adriano Peris; Chiara Lazzeri; Aldo Amantini; Antonello Grippo
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  2018-10-07       Impact factor: 3.209

Review 4.  American Clinical Neurophysiology Society's Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology: 2012 version.

Authors:  L J Hirsch; S M LaRoche; N Gaspard; E Gerard; A Svoronos; S T Herman; R Mani; H Arif; N Jette; Y Minazad; J F Kerrigan; P Vespa; S Hantus; J Claassen; G B Young; E So; P W Kaplan; M R Nuwer; N B Fountain; F W Drislane
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.177

5.  Outcome prediction in patients after cardiac arrest: a simplified method for determination of gray-white matter ratio in cranial computed tomography.

Authors:  A Gentsch; C Storm; C Leithner; T Schroeder; C J Ploner; B Hamm; E Wiener; M Scheel
Journal:  Clin Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 3.649

6.  Single electroencephalographic patterns as specific and time-dependent indicators of good and poor outcome after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  M Spalletti; R Carrai; M Scarpino; C Cossu; A Ammannati; M Ciapetti; L Tadini Buoninsegni; A Peris; S Valente; A Grippo; A Amantini
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Neurophysiological prediction of neurological good and poor outcome in post-anoxic coma.

Authors:  A Grippo; R Carrai; M Scarpino; M Spalletti; G Lanzo; C Cossu; A Peris; S Valente; A Amantini
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.209

8.  Neurophysiological and neuroradiological multimodal approach for early poor outcome prediction after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Maenia Scarpino; Giovanni Lanzo; Francesco Lolli; Riccardo Carrai; Marco Moretti; Maddalena Spalletti; Morena Cozzolino; Adriano Peris; Aldo Amantini; Antonello Grippo
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 5.262

9.  Is brain computed tomography combined with somatosensory evoked potentials useful in the prediction of brain death after cardiac arrest?

Authors:  Maenia Scarpino; Giovanni Lanzo; Francesco Lolli; Marco Moretti; Riccardo Carrai; Maria Luisa Migliaccio; Maddalena Spalletti; Manuela Bonizzoli; Adriano Peris; Aldo Amantini; Antonello Grippo
Journal:  Neurophysiol Clin       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 3.734

Review 10.  Prognostication after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Claudio Sandroni; Sonia D'Arrigo; Jerry P Nolan
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Prediction of poor neurological outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a systematic review.

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

2.  Predictive values of early head computed tomography for survival outcome after cardiac arrest in childhood: a pilot study.

Authors:  Kenichi Tetsuhara; Noriyuki Kaku; Yuka Watanabe; Masaya Kumamoto; Yuko Ichimiya; Soichi Mizuguchi; Kanako Higashi; Wakato Matsuoka; Yoshitomo Motomura; Masafumi Sanefuji; Akio Hiwatashi; Yasunari Sakai; Shouichi Ohga
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Electrodiagnostic findings in patients with non-COVID-19- and COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Maenia Scarpino; Manuela Bonizzoli; Chiara Lazzeri; Giovanni Lanzo; Francesco Lolli; Marco Ciapetti; Bahia Hakiki; Antonello Grippo; Adriano Peris; Andrea Ammannati; Fabrizio Baldanzi; Maria Bastianelli; Annamaria Bighellini; Cristina Boccardi; Riccardo Carrai; Annalisa Cassardo; Cesarina Cossu; Simonetta Gabbanini; Carmela Ielapi; Cristiana Martinelli; Giulia Masi; Cristina Mei; Simone Troiano
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 3.209

4.  Clinical, Neurophysiological, and Genetic Predictors of Recovery in Patients With Severe Acquired Brain Injuries (PRABI): A Study Protocol for a Longitudinal Observational Study.

Authors:  Bahia Hakiki; Ida Donnini; Anna Maria Romoli; Francesca Draghi; Daniela Maccanti; Antonello Grippo; Maenia Scarpino; Antonio Maiorelli; Raisa Sterpu; Tiziana Atzori; Andrea Mannini; Silvia Campagnini; Silvia Bagnoli; Assunta Ingannato; Benedetta Nacmias; Francesco De Bellis; Anna Estraneo; Valentina Carli; Eugenia Pasqualone; Angela Comanducci; Jorghe Navarro; Maria Chiara Carrozza; Claudio Macchi; Francesca Cecchi
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 4.003

Review 5.  Gray-White Matter Ratio at the Level of the Basal Ganglia as a Predictor of Neurologic Outcomes in Cardiac Arrest Survivors: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Fating Zhou; Hongxia Wang; Mengyao Jian; Zhiyuan Wang; Yarong He; Haizhen Duan; Lu Gan; Yu Cao
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-03-15

6.  Adult Advanced Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.