| Literature DB >> 32563037 |
Thomas Kustermann1, Nathalie Ata Nguepnjo Nguissi2, Christian Pfeiffer3, Matthias Haenggi4, Rebekka Kurmann5, Frédéric Zubler5, Mauro Oddo6, Andrea O Rossetti7, Marzia De Lucia2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC), properties of functional brain networks at rest are informative of the degree of consciousness impairment and of long-term outcome. Here we investigate whether connectivity differences between patients with favorable and unfavorable outcome are already present within 24 h of coma onset.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac arrest; Coma; EEG; Functional connectivity; Resting state
Year: 2020 PMID: 32563037 PMCID: PMC7305428 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 2Exemplary graphs of one patient with FO and one patient with UO at 82.5% pruning. Colors reflect modules as identified by the Louvain algorithm 29. Spatial configuration of sub-communities as calculated through the Yifan-Hu algorithm 30. Each inset represents the projection of the community affiliation on the EEG electrode array. One can note that communities are more spatially segregated in the patient with FO than in the patient with UO reflecting higher modularity.
Prediction results based on the time-variance of clustering coefficient, path length, modularity and participation coefficient in training and test sets derived from the functional connectivity matrices on the first day of coma. Statistically significant predictions are highlighted in bold. PPV = Positive Predictive Value; NPV = Negative Predictive Value.
| Condition | PPV | NPV | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | 0.71 | 0.47 | 0.37 | 0.54 | |
| Test | 0.46 | 0.30 | |||
| Training | 0.50 | 0.41 | 0.59 | ||
| Test | 0.50 | ||||
| Training | 0.65 | 0.26 | |||
| Test | 0.32 | ||||
| Training | 0.67 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.68 | 0.54 |
| Test | 0.48 | 0.43 | |||
Fig. 1Group-level analysis of the 10 Hz dwPLI derived topological features for FO (n = 57 in blue) and UO (n = 41 in red). The left column shows the values as a function of percentage of connections pruned. The right column shows the probability densities of the summed values and their individual scores (lower half of each subplot). Boxplots reflect the median and the interquartile range (IQR) via the box and the 1.5 IQR via the whiskers. Displayed significant p-values result from t-test comparison between FO and UO, corrected for multiple comparisons. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 3Group-level analysis of the 10 Hz dwPLI derived time-variance of the topological features for FO (n = 57 in blue) and UO (n = 41 in red). The left column shows the values as a function of percentage of connections pruned. The right column shows probability densities of summed values and their individual scores (lower half of each subplot). Boxplots reflect the median and IQR via the box and the 1.5 IQR via the whiskers. Displayed significant p-values result from t-test comparison between FO and UO, corrected for multiple comparisons. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 4Outcome prediction for FO (n = 57) and UO (n = 41) based on the time-variance of the topological features. Each dot represents the sum of topological features across pruning levels for an individual patient. Blue and red dots refer to patients included in the training and test datasets respectively. The horizontal dashed line indicates the classification cut-off for outcome prediction. Values above the threshold are predictive to have FO. Classification cut-offs were chosen to maximize the positive predictive value in the training dataset. The selected parameters were then validated using an independent test set. * = significant at p < 0.01 level. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Demographic and clinical comparisons of patients above and below the path length time-variance threshold, separately for FO and UO; the number of patients for which values were not available are shown in parentheses. Statistical results are shown based on t-statistic or Fisher’s exact test. ROSC = Return of spontaneous circulation; FOUR = Full Outline of UnResponsiveness; SSEP = Somatosensory evoked potentials.
| Path length time-variance | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Above threshold | Below threshold | p-value | |
| 26 | 31 | ||
| Time to ROSC (min), | 19.11 ± 14.28 | 22.25 ± 13.66 | 0.41 |
| Age (y), | 57.76 ± 15.87 | 65.90 ± 13.70 | 0.05 |
| Gender (male), | 22 (0) | 26(0) | 1 |
| Time to 1st EEG (h), | 18.85 ± 6.92 | 21.76 ± 5.34 | 0.10 |
| Time from 1st to 2nd EEG (h), | 23.84 ± 3.02 | 22.51 ± 2.77 | 0.16 |
| Temperature (°C), | 35.61 ± 0.85 | 35.64 ± 1.11 | 0.92 |
| Propofol (mg/kg/h), | 2.46 ± 1.53 (21) | 2.54 ± 0.74 (23) | 0.85 |
| Midazolam (mg/kg/h), | 0.13 ± 0.05 (12) | 0.11 ± 0.05 (8) | 0.46 |
| Fentanyl (μg/kh/h), | 0.89 ± 0.46 (20) | 1.55 ± 1.49 (22) | 0.07 |
| FOUR score | 4.83 ± 2.76 | 4.85 ± 1.79 | 0.99 |
| Eye | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | |
| Motor | 0.86 ± 1.36 | 0.20 ± 0.60 | 0.30 |
| Brainstem | 2.57 ± 0.90 | 3.30 ± 1.10 | 0.18 |
| Respiratory | 0.57 ± 0.49 | 0.60 ± 0.49 | 0.91 |
| EEG reactivity 1st day, | 5 (6) | 5 (3) | 0.72 |
| EEG discontinuity 1st day, | 4 (1) | 14 (1) | 0.02 |
| Electrographic epileptic activity 1st day, | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 |
| Pulmonary etiology of CA, | 6 (0) | 5 (0) | 0.52 |
| Pupillary reflexes, | 20 (6) | 25 (3) | 0.25 |
| Corneal reflexes, | 18 (6) | 23 (3) | 0.68 |
| Motor response, | 14 (6) | 22 (3) | 0.52 |
| SSEP absence, | 0 (14) | 0 (15) | |
| 6 | 35 | ||
| ROSC (min), | 34.16 ± 14.55 | 28.22 ± 13.78 | 0.42 |
| Age (y), | 59.66 ± 10.27 | 66.00 ± 13.42 | 0.25 |
| Gender (male), | 4 (0) | 23 (0) | 1 |
| Time to 1st EEG (h), | 22.83 ± 5.84 | 20.07 ± 7.03 | 0.37 |
| Time from 1st to 2nd EEG (h), | 23.80 ± 1.32 | 24.08 ± 4.99 | 0.81 |
| Temperature (°C), | 36.22 ± 0.51 | 35.82 ± 0.91 | 0.18 |
| Propofol (mg/kg/h), | 3.08 ± 1.024 (6) | 2.18 ± 1.41 (13) | 0.20 |
| Midazolam (mg/kg/h), | 0.03 ± 0.02 (2) | 0.09 ± 0.05 (16) | 0.04 |
| Fentanyl (μg/kh/h), | 0.50 ± 0.24 (3) | 1.06 ± 0.73 (17) | 0.05 |
| FOUR | 2.40 ± 1.62 | 2.38 ± 2.04 | 0.98 |
| Eye | 0 ± 0 | 0.08 ± 0.27 | 0.34 |
| Motor | 0 ± 0 | 0.46 ± 1.08 | 0.17 |
| Brainstem | 2.00 ± 1.41 | 2.15 ± 1.50 | 0.87 |
| Respiratory | 0.50 ± 0.50 | 0.62 ± 0.49 | 0.74 |
| EEG reactivity 1st day, | 5 (1) | 25 (7) | 1 |
| EEG discontinuity 1st day, | 5 (0) | 26 (3) | 1 |
| Electrographic epileptic activity 1st day, | 6 (0) | 13 (3) | 0.02 |
| Pulmonary etiology of CA, | 2 (0) | 5 (3) | 0.30 |
| Pupillary reflexes, | 3 (1) | 18 (10) | 0.62 |
| Corneal reflexes, | 3 (1) | 9 (10) | 0.36 |
| Motor response, | 1 (1) | 2 (10) | 0.43 |
| SSEP absence, | 3 (3) | 9 (18) | 0.24 |