4.6 Article

Brain Death and Its Prediction in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients Treated with Targeted Temperature Management

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051190

关键词

heart arrest; induced hypothermia; prognostication; brain death; organ transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study analyzed one hospital's TTM registry and found that approximately one-sixth of in-hospital death patients developed brain death after cardiac arrest. Comparing clinical variables and prognostic test results, the study identified that the gray-to-white matter ratio on early brain CT images and the S100B level at 72 hours may help to screen potential brain death.
Evolution toward brain death (BD) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with targeted temperature management (TTM) provides opportunities for organ donation. However, knowledge regarding BD in these patients is limited. We retrospectively analyzed the TTM registry of one hospital where life-sustaining therapy was not withdrawn. In-hospital death patients were categorized into BD and non-BD groups. We explored the process of evolution toward BD and its predictors by comparing the serial measurements of clinical variables and the results of various prognostic tests between the two groups. Of the 121 patients who died before hospital discharge, 19 patients (15.7%) developed BD at a median of 6 (interquartile range, 5.0-7.0) days after cardiac arrest. Four patients with pupillary light reflexes at 48 h eventually developed BD. The area under the curves of the gray-to-white matter ratio (GWR) on early brain computed tomography images and the level of S100 calcium-binding protein B (S100B) at 72 h were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.55-0.77) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.83), respectively. In conclusion, approximately one-sixth of all in-hospital deaths were diagnosed with BD at a median of 6 days after cardiac arrest. The use of GWR and serial S100B measurements may help to screen potential BD.

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

4.6
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