https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=38059722&retmode=xml&tool=Litmetric&email=readroberts32@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09 380597222024031520240527
1530-02935242024Apr01Critical care medicineCrit Care Med2021 European Resuscitation Council/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Algorithm for Prognostication of Poor Neurological Outcome After Cardiac Arrest-Can Entry Criteria Be Broadened?531541531-54110.1097/CCM.0000000000006113To explore broadened entry criteria of the 2021 European Resuscitation Council/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ERC/ESICM) algorithm for neuroprognostication including patients with ongoing sedation and Glasgow Coma Scale-Motor score (GCS-M) scores 4-5.Retrospective multicenter observational study.Four ICUs, Skane, Sweden.Postcardiac arrest patients managed at targeted temperature 36°C, 2014-2018. Neurologic outcome was assessed after 2-6 months according to the Cerebral Performance Category scale.None.In 794 included patients, median age was 69.5 years (interquartile range, 60.6-77.0 yr), 241 (30.4%) were female, 550 (69.3%) had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 314 (41.3%) had a shockable rhythm. Four hundred ninety-five patients were dead at follow-up, 330 of 495 died after a decision on withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies. At 72 hours after cardiac arrest 218 patients remained unconscious. The entry criteria of the original algorithm (GCS-M 1-3) was fulfilled by 163 patients and 115 patients with poor outcome were identified, with false positive rate (FPR) of 0% (95% CI, 0-79.4%) and sensitivity of 71.0% (95% CI, 63.6-77.4%). Inclusion of patients with ongoing sedation identified another 13 patients with poor outcome, generating FPR of 0% (95% CI, 0-65.8%) and sensitivity of 69.6% (95% CI, 62.6-75.8%). Inclusion of all unconscious patients (GCS-M 1-5), regardless of sedation, identified one additional patient, generating FPR of 0% (95% CI, 0-22.8) and sensitivity of 62.9% (95% CI, 56.1-69.2). The few patients with true negative prediction (patients with good outcome not fulfilling guideline criteria of a poor outcome) generated wide 95% CI for FPR.The 2021 ERC/ESICM algorithm for neuroprognostication predicted poor neurologic outcome with a FPR of 0%. Broadening inclusion criteria to include all unconscious patients regardless of ongoing sedation identified an additional small number of patients with poor outcome but did not affect the FPR. Results are limited by high rate of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and few patients with true negative prediction.Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.ArctaediusIsabelleIAnesthesia & Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.LevinHelenaHAnaesthesia & Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University and Department of Research & Education, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.LarssonMelkerMAnesthesia & Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.FribergHansHAnesthesia & Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.CronbergTobiasTNeurology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.NielsenNiklasNAnesthesia & Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden.Moseby-KnappeMarionMNeurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.LybeckAnnaAAnesthesia & Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.engClinicalTrials.govNCT04974775Regional Research Support Region SkaneGovernment funding of clinical research within the Swedish National Health Services ALFJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyObservational StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't20231207
United StatesCrit Care Med03555010090-3493Swede peopleIMCritical CareScandinavians and Nordic PeopleHypothermia, InducedmethodsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedCardiopulmonary ResuscitationmethodsMalePrognosisRetrospective StudiesOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArresttherapyAgedDr. Arctaedius received funding from Tegger Stiftelsen and Swedish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care (for educational purpose and not research related). Dr. Friberg disclosed they participated in the 2021 European Resuscitation Council/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ERC/ESICM) advisory statement on neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest. Dr. Cronberg disclosed they were a guideline author of the 2021 ERC/ESICM guidelines for postresuscitation care. Drs. Moseby-Knappe’s and Lybeck’s institutions received funding from the Swedish National Health Service and Regional Research Support Region Skåne. Dr. Moseby-Knappe’s institution received funding from the Segerfalk Foundation at Lund University and the Bundy Academy at Lund University. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.2024315643202312712422023127932ppublish3805972210.1097/CCM.000000000000611300003246-990000000-00243Laver S, Farrow C, Turner D, et al.: Mode of death after admission to an intensive care unit following cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:2126–2128Mulder M, Gibbs HG, Smith SW, et al.: Awakening and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in cardiac arrest survivors treated with therapeutic hypothermia*. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:2493–2499Nolan JP, Sandroni C, Böttiger BW, et al.: European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Guidelines 2021: Post-resuscitation care. Resuscitation 2021; 161:220–269Elmer J, Torres C, Aufderheide TP, et al.; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium: Association of early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for perceived neurological prognosis with mortality after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2016; 102:127–135May TL, Ruthazer R, Riker RR, et al.: Early withdrawal of life support after resuscitation from cardiac arrest is common and may result in additional deaths. Resuscitation 2019; 139:308–313Sandroni C, Cariou A, Cavallaro F, et al.: Prognostication in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: An advisory statement from the European Resuscitation Council and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Resuscitation 2014; 85:1779–1789Nolan JP, Soar J, Cariou A, et al.; European Resuscitation Council; European Society of Intensive Care Medicine: European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine 2015 guidelines for post-resuscitation care. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41:2039–2056Hirsch LJ, Fong MWK, Leitinger M, et al.: American Clinical Neurophysiology Society’s standardized critical care EEG terminology: 2021 Version. J Clin Neurophysiol 2021; 38:1–29Andersson A, Arctaedius I, Cronberg T, et al.: In-hospital versus out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Characteristics and outcomes in patients admitted to intensive care after return of spontaneous circulation. Resuscitation 2022; 176:1–8Witten L, Gardner R, Holmberg MJ, et al.: Reasons for death in patients successfully resuscitated from out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2019; 136:93–99Moseby-Knappe M, Westhall E, Backman S, et al.: Performance of a guideline-recommended algorithm for prognostication of poor neurological outcome after cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46:1852–1862Zhou SE, Maciel CB, Ormseth CH, et al.: Distinct predictive values of current neuroprognostic guidelines in post-cardiac arrest patients. Resuscitation 2019; 139:343–350Youn CS, Park KN, Kim SH, et al.; Korean Hypothermia Network Investigators: External validation of the 2020 ERC/ESICM prognostication strategy algorithm after cardiac arrest. Crit Care 2022; 26:95Kim YJ, Ahn S, Sohn CH, et al.: Long-term neurological outcomes in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2016; 101:1–5Howell K, Grill E, Klein AM, et al.: Rehabilitation outcome of anoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy survivors with prolonged disorders of consciousness. Resuscitation 2013; 84:1409–1415Lybeck A, Cronberg T, Aneman A, et al.; TTM-trial investigators: Time to awakening after cardiac arrest and the association with target temperature management. Resuscitation 2018; 126:166–171van den Broek MP, Groenendaal F, Egberts AC, et al.: Effects of hypothermia on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: A systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies. Clin Pharmacokinet 2010; 49:277–294Steinberg A, Grayek E, Arnold RM, et al.: Physicians’ cognitive approach to prognostication after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2022; 173:112–121Sandroni C, D’Arrigo S, Cacciola S, et al.: Prediction of poor neurological outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: A systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46:1803–1851Wang GN, Chen XF, Lv JR, et al.: The prognostic value of gray-white matter ratio on brain computed tomography in adult comatose cardiac arrest survivors. J Chin Med Assoc 2018; 81:599–604Mattsson N, Zetterberg H, Nielsen N, et al.: Serum tau and neurological outcome in cardiac arrest. Ann Neurol 2017; 82:665–675Moseby-Knappe M, Mattsson N, Nielsen N, et al.: Serum neurofilament light chain for prognosis of outcome after cardiac arrest. JAMA Neurol. 2019; 76:64–71Wihersaari L, Ashton NJ, Reinikainen M, et al.; COMACARE STUDY GROUP: Neurofilament light as an outcome predictor after cardiac arrest: A post hoc analysis of the COMACARE trial. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47:39–48Ebner F, Moseby-Knappe M, Mattsson-Carlgren N, et al.: Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for the prediction of neurological outcome in comatose cardiac arrest patients. Resuscitation 2020; 154:61–68Levin H, Lybeck A, Frigyesi A, et al.: Plasma neurofilament light is a predictor of neurological outcome 12 h after cardiac arrest. Crit Care 2023; 27:74Ruijter BJ, Tjepkema-Cloostermans MC, Tromp SC, et al.: Early electroencephalography for outcome prediction of postanoxic coma: A prospective cohort study. Ann Neurol 2019; 86:203–214