4.5 Article

S-100B is superior to NSE, BDNF and GFAP in predicting outcome of resuscitation from cardiac arrest with hypothermia treatment

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 82, 期 1, 页码 26-31

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.10.011

关键词

Hypothermia; Post-resuscitation period; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To conduct a pilot study to evaluate the blood levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neuron specific enolase (NSE) and S-100B as prognostic markers for neurological outcome 6 months after hypothermia treatment following resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: One intensive care unit at Uppsala University Hospital. Patients: Thirty-one unconscious patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest. Interventions: None. Measurements and main results: Unconscious patients after cardiac arrest with restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were treated with mild hypothermia to 32-34 degrees C for 26 h. Time from cardiac arrest to target temperature was measured. Blood samples were collected at intervals of 1-108 h after ROSC. Neurological outcome was assessed with Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category (CPC) scale at discharge from intensive care and again 6 months later, when 15/31 patients were alive, of whom 14 had a good outcome (CPC 1-2). Among the predictive biomarkers, S-100B at 24 h after ROSC was the best, predicting poor outcome (CPC 3-5) with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 100%. NSE at 96 h after ROSC predicted poor outcome, with sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 93%. BDNF and GFAP levels did not predict outcome. The time from cardiac arrest to target temperature was shorter for those with poor outcome. Conclusions: The blood concentration of S-100B at 24 h after ROSC is highly predictive of outcome in patients treated with mild hypothermia after cardiac arrest. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据