D Pugin1, J Hofmeister2,3,4, Y Gasche5, S Vulliemoz6, K-O Lövblad7, D Van De Ville3,4,8, S Haller9,10,11. 1. From the Departments of Intensive Care (D.P., Y.G.) Deborah.pugin@hcuge.ch. 2. Radiology (J.H.). 3. Geneva Neuroscience Center (J.H., D.V.D.V.). 4. Radiology and Medical Informatics (J.H., D.V.D.V.). 5. From the Departments of Intensive Care (D.P., Y.G.). 6. Neurology (S.V.). 7. Neuroradiology (K.-O.L.), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. Institute of Bioengineering (D.V.D.V.), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland. 9. Faculty of Medicine (S.H.), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 10. Centre d'Imagerie Rive Droite (S.H.), Geneva, Switzerland. 11. Department of Surgical Sciences, Radiology (S.H.), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early outcome prediction of postanoxic patients in a coma after cardiac arrest proves challenging. Current prognostication relies on multimodal testing, using clinical examination, electrophysiologic testing, biomarkers, and structural MR imaging. While this multimodal prognostication is accurate for predicting poor outcome (ie, death), it is not sensitive enough to identify good outcome (ie, consciousness recovery), thus leaving many patients with indeterminate prognosis. We specifically assessed whether resting-state fMRI provides prognostic information, notably in postanoxic patients in a coma with indeterminate prognosis early after cardiac arrest, specifically for good outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used resting-state fMRI in a prospective study to compare whole-brain functional connectivity between patients with good and poor outcomes, implementing support vector machine learning. Then, we automatically predicted coma outcome using resting-state fMRI and also compared the prediction based on resting-state fMRI with the outcome prediction based on DWI. RESULTS: Of 17 eligible patients who completed the study procedure (among 351 patients screened), 9 regained consciousness and 8 remained comatose. We found higher functional connectivity in patients recovering consciousness, with greater changes occurring within and between the occipitoparietal and temporofrontal regions. Coma outcome prognostication based on resting-state fMRI machine learning was very accurate, notably for identifying patients with good outcome (accuracy, 94.4%; area under the receiver operating curve, 0.94). Outcome predictors using resting-state fMRI performed significantly better (P < .05) than DWI (accuracy, 60.0%; area under the receiver operating curve, 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Indeterminate prognosis might lead to major clinical uncertainty and significant variations in life-sustaining treatments. Resting-state fMRI might bridge the gap left in early prognostication of postanoxic patients in a coma by identifying those with both good and poor outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early outcome prediction of postanoxic patients in a coma after cardiac arrest proves challenging. Current prognostication relies on multimodal testing, using clinical examination, electrophysiologic testing, biomarkers, and structural MR imaging. While this multimodal prognostication is accurate for predicting poor outcome (ie, death), it is not sensitive enough to identify good outcome (ie, consciousness recovery), thus leaving many patients with indeterminate prognosis. We specifically assessed whether resting-state fMRI provides prognostic information, notably in postanoxic patients in a coma with indeterminate prognosis early after cardiac arrest, specifically for good outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used resting-state fMRI in a prospective study to compare whole-brain functional connectivity between patients with good and poor outcomes, implementing support vector machine learning. Then, we automatically predicted coma outcome using resting-state fMRI and also compared the prediction based on resting-state fMRI with the outcome prediction based on DWI. RESULTS: Of 17 eligible patients who completed the study procedure (among 351 patients screened), 9 regained consciousness and 8 remained comatose. We found higher functional connectivity in patients recovering consciousness, with greater changes occurring within and between the occipitoparietal and temporofrontal regions. Coma outcome prognostication based on resting-state fMRI machine learning was very accurate, notably for identifying patients with good outcome (accuracy, 94.4%; area under the receiver operating curve, 0.94). Outcome predictors using resting-state fMRI performed significantly better (P < .05) than DWI (accuracy, 60.0%; area under the receiver operating curve, 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Indeterminate prognosis might lead to major clinical uncertainty and significant variations in life-sustaining treatments. Resting-state fMRI might bridge the gap left in early prognostication of postanoxic patients in a coma by identifying those with both good and poor outcomes.
Authors: Jonas Richiardi; Hamdi Eryilmaz; Sophie Schwartz; Patrik Vuilleumier; Dimitri Van De Ville Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Scott J Peltier; Chantal Kerssens; Stephan B Hamann; Peter S Sebel; Michael Byas-Smith; Xiaoping Hu Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Joshua Z Willey; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Athena Demertzi; Georgios Antonopoulos; Lizette Heine; Henning U Voss; Julia Sophia Crone; Carlo de Los Angeles; Mohamed Ali Bahri; Carol Di Perri; Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse; Vanessa Charland-Verville; Martin Kronbichler; Eugen Trinka; Christophe Phillips; Francisco Gomez; Luaba Tshibanda; Andrea Soddu; Nicholas D Schiff; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Steven Laureys Journal: Brain Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Seung Pill Choi; Kyu Nam Park; Hae Kwan Park; Jee Young Kim; Chun Song Youn; Kook Jin Ahn; Hyeon Woo Yim Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: H M Keijzer; C W E Hoedemaekers; F J A Meijer; B A R Tonino; C J M Klijn; J Hofmeijer Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Julia Sophia Crone; Andrea Soddu; Yvonne Höller; Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse; Matthias Schurz; Jürgen Bergmann; Elisabeth Schmid; Eugen Trinka; Steven Laureys; Martin Kronbichler Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-12-26 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Karnig Kazazian; Loretta Norton; Geoffrey Laforge; Androu Abdalmalak; Teneille E Gofton; Derek Debicki; Marat Slessarev; Sarah Hollywood; Keith St Lawrence; Adrian M Owen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: David Fischer; Zachary D Threlkeld; Yelena G Bodien; John E Kirsch; Susie Y Huang; Pamela W Schaefer; Otto Rapalino; Leigh R Hochberg; Bruce R Rosen; Brian L Edlow Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 11.274