4.7 Article

Early electroencephalography for outcome prediction of postanoxic coma: A prospective cohort study

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 203-214

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.25518

关键词

-

资金

  1. Epilepsiefonds [NEF 14-18] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To provide evidence that early electroencephalography (EEG) allows for reliable prediction of poor or good outcome after cardiac arrest. Methods In a 5-center prospective cohort study, we included consecutive, comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. Continuous EEG recordings were started as soon as possible and continued up to 5 days. Five-minute EEG epochs were assessed by 2 reviewers, independently, at 8 predefined time points from 6 hours to 5 days after cardiac arrest, blinded for patients' actual condition, treatment, and outcome. EEG patterns were categorized as generalized suppression (<10 mu V), synchronous patterns with >= 50% suppression, continuous, or other. Outcome at 6 months was categorized as good (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] = 1-2) or poor (CPC = 3-5). Results We included 850 patients, of whom 46% had a good outcome. Generalized suppression and synchronous patterns with >= 50% suppression predicted poor outcome without false positives at >= 6 hours after cardiac arrest. Their summed sensitivity was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.42-0.51) at 12 hours and 0.30 (95% CI = 0.26-0.33) at 24 hours after cardiac arrest, with specificity of 1.00 (95% CI = 0.99-1.00) at both time points. At 36 hours or later, sensitivity for poor outcome was <= 0.22. Continuous EEG patterns at 12 hours predicted good outcome, with sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI = 0.46-0.55) and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI = 0.88-0.93); at 24 hours or later, specificity for the prediction of good outcome was EEG allows for reliable prediction of poor outcome after cardiac arrest, with maximum sensitivity in the first 24 hours. Continuous EEG patterns at 12 hours after cardiac arrest are associated with good recovery. ANN NEUROL 2019;86:203-214

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

4.7
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