Sachin Agarwal1, Nicholas Morris2, Caroline Der-Nigoghossian3, Teresa May4, Daniel Brodie5. 1. Division of Neurocritical Care and Hospitalist Neurology, Department of Neurology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. sa2512@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, Program in Trauma, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Clinical Pharmacy, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA. 5. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to highlight the influence of therapeutic maneuvers on neuro-prognostication measures administered to comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. We focus on the effect of sedation regimens in the setting of targeted temperature management (TTM), one of the principle interventions known to improve neurological recovery after cardiac arrest. Further, we discuss the critical need for novel markers, as well as refinement of existing markers, among patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the setting of failed conventional resuscitation, known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). RECENT FINDINGS: Automated pupillometry may have some advantage over standard pupillary examination for prognostication following TTM, sedation, or the use of ECMO after cardiac arrest. New serum biomarkers such as Neurofilament light chain have shown good predictive abilities and need further validation in these populations. There is a high-level uncertainty in brain death declaration protocols particularly related to apnea testing and appropriate ancillary tests in patients receiving ECMO. Both sedation and TTM alone and in combination have been shown to affect prognostic markers to varying degrees. The optimal approach to analog-sedation is unknown, and requires further study. Moreover, validation of known prognostic markers, as well as brain death declaration processes in patients receiving ECMO is warranted. Data on the effects of TTM, sedation, and ECMO on biomarkers (e.g., neuron-specific enolase) and electrophysiology measures (e.g., somatosensory-evoked potentials) is sparse. The best approach may be one customized to the individual patient, a precision-medicine approach.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to highlight the influence of therapeutic maneuvers on neuro-prognostication measures administered to comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. We focus on the effect of sedation regimens in the setting of targeted temperature management (TTM), one of the principle interventions known to improve neurological recovery after cardiac arrest. Further, we discuss the critical need for novel markers, as well as refinement of existing markers, among patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the setting of failed conventional resuscitation, known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). RECENT FINDINGS: Automated pupillometry may have some advantage over standard pupillary examination for prognostication following TTM, sedation, or the use of ECMO after cardiac arrest. New serum biomarkers such as Neurofilament light chain have shown good predictive abilities and need further validation in these populations. There is a high-level uncertainty in brain death declaration protocols particularly related to apnea testing and appropriate ancillary tests in patients receiving ECMO. Both sedation and TTM alone and in combination have been shown to affect prognostic markers to varying degrees. The optimal approach to analog-sedation is unknown, and requires further study. Moreover, validation of known prognostic markers, as well as brain death declaration processes in patients receiving ECMO is warranted. Data on the effects of TTM, sedation, and ECMO on biomarkers (e.g., neuron-specific enolase) and electrophysiology measures (e.g., somatosensory-evoked potentials) is sparse. The best approach may be one customized to the individual patient, a precision-medicine approach.
Authors: H Alex Choi; Sang-Bae Ko; Mary Presciutti; Luis Fernandez; Amanda M Carpenter; Christine Lesch; Emily Gilmore; Rishi Malhotra; Stephan A Mayer; Kiwon Lee; Jan Claassen; J Michael Schmidt; Neeraj Badjatia Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Ona Wu; Leonardo M Batista; Fabricio O Lima; Mark G Vangel; Karen L Furie; David M Greer Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: E Westhall; I Rosén; M Rundgren; J Bro-Jeppesen; J Kjaergaard; C Hassager; H Lindehammar; J Horn; S Ullén; N Nielsen; H Friberg; T Cronberg Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jeannette Hofmeijer; Tim M J Beernink; Frank H Bosch; Albertus Beishuizen; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Guy W Glover; Richard M Thomas; George Vamvakas; Nawaf Al-Subaie; Jules Cranshaw; Andrew Walden; Matthew P Wise; Marlies Ostermann; Emma Thomas-Jones; Tobias Cronberg; David Erlinge; Yvan Gasche; Christian Hassager; Janneke Horn; Jesper Kjaergaard; Michael Kuiper; Tommaso Pellis; Pascal Stammet; Michael Wanscher; Jørn Wetterslev; Hans Friberg; Niklas Nielsen Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Sang Hoon Oh; Kyu Nam Park; Seung Pill Choi; Joo Suk Oh; Han Joon Kim; Chun Song Youn; Soo Hyun Kim; Kiyuk Chang; Seong Hoon Kim Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 9.097