Predicting neurological outcome after cardiac arrest by combining computational parameters extracted from standard and deviant responses from auditory evoked potentials.

automatic classification algorithm coma electroencephalography machine learning neurological prognosis

Journal

Frontiers in neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-4548
Titre abrégé: Front Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101478481

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 07 07 2022
accepted: 27 01 2023
entrez: 6 3 2023
pubmed: 7 3 2023
medline: 7 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite multimodal assessment (clinical examination, biology, brain MRI, electroencephalography, somatosensory evoked potentials, mismatch negativity at auditory evoked potentials), coma prognostic evaluation remains challenging. We present here a method to predict the return to consciousness and good neurological outcome based on classification of auditory evoked potentials obtained during an oddball paradigm. Data from event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded noninvasively using four surface electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes in a cohort of 29 post-cardiac arrest comatose patients (between day 3 and day 6 following admission). We extracted retrospectively several EEG features (standard deviation and similarity for standard auditory stimulations and number of extrema and oscillations for deviant auditory stimulations) from the time responses in a window of few hundreds of milliseconds. The responses to the standard and the deviant auditory stimulations were thus considered independently. By combining these features, based on machine learning, we built a two-dimensional map to evaluate possible group clustering. Analysis in two-dimensions of the present data revealed two separated clusters of patients with good versus bad neurological outcome. When favoring the highest specificity of our mathematical algorithms (0.91), we found a sensitivity of 0.83 and an accuracy of 0.90, maintained when calculation was performed using data from only one central electrode. Using Gaussian, K-neighborhood and SVM classifiers, we could predict the neurological outcome of post-anoxic comatose patients, the validity of the method being tested by a cross-validation procedure. Moreover, the same results were obtained with one single electrode (Cz). statistics of standard and deviant responses considered separately provide complementary and confirmatory predictions of the outcome of anoxic comatose patients, better assessed when combining these features on a two-dimensional statistical map. The benefit of this method compared to classical EEG and ERP predictors should be tested in a large prospective cohort. If validated, this method could provide an alternative tool to intensivists, to better evaluate neurological outcome and improve patient management, without neurophysiologist assistance.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Despite multimodal assessment (clinical examination, biology, brain MRI, electroencephalography, somatosensory evoked potentials, mismatch negativity at auditory evoked potentials), coma prognostic evaluation remains challenging.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We present here a method to predict the return to consciousness and good neurological outcome based on classification of auditory evoked potentials obtained during an oddball paradigm. Data from event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded noninvasively using four surface electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes in a cohort of 29 post-cardiac arrest comatose patients (between day 3 and day 6 following admission). We extracted retrospectively several EEG features (standard deviation and similarity for standard auditory stimulations and number of extrema and oscillations for deviant auditory stimulations) from the time responses in a window of few hundreds of milliseconds. The responses to the standard and the deviant auditory stimulations were thus considered independently. By combining these features, based on machine learning, we built a two-dimensional map to evaluate possible group clustering.
Results UNASSIGNED
Analysis in two-dimensions of the present data revealed two separated clusters of patients with good versus bad neurological outcome. When favoring the highest specificity of our mathematical algorithms (0.91), we found a sensitivity of 0.83 and an accuracy of 0.90, maintained when calculation was performed using data from only one central electrode. Using Gaussian, K-neighborhood and SVM classifiers, we could predict the neurological outcome of post-anoxic comatose patients, the validity of the method being tested by a cross-validation procedure. Moreover, the same results were obtained with one single electrode (Cz).
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
statistics of standard and deviant responses considered separately provide complementary and confirmatory predictions of the outcome of anoxic comatose patients, better assessed when combining these features on a two-dimensional statistical map. The benefit of this method compared to classical EEG and ERP predictors should be tested in a large prospective cohort. If validated, this method could provide an alternative tool to intensivists, to better evaluate neurological outcome and improve patient management, without neurophysiologist assistance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36875664
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.988394
pmc: PMC9975713
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

988394

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Floyrac, Doumergue, Legriel, Deye, Megarbane, Richard, Meppiel, Masmoudi, Lozeron, Vicaut, Kubis and Holcman.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

AF, AR, NK, and DH have a patent application for the prediction of coma outcome (French patent FR1852473, titled “Outil prédictif de la sortie du coma des patients après un arrêt cardio-respiratoire”). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Dec;126(12):2397-404
pubmed: 25934481
Neurology. 2016 Apr 19;86(16):1482-90
pubmed: 26865516
J Clin Neurophysiol. 1988 Apr;5(2):161-74
pubmed: 3074973
Crit Care. 2005;9(6):R645-52
pubmed: 16280063
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Mar;35(3):505-11
pubmed: 18936907
Resusc Plus. 2020 Dec 11;4:100045
pubmed: 34223320
Resuscitation. 2022 Feb;171:15-29
pubmed: 34971720
Crit Care Med. 2013 Jun;41(6):1492-501
pubmed: 23507719
Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Nov;131(11):2736-2765
pubmed: 32917521
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Dec;121(6):1290-1297
pubmed: 30442256
Neurology. 2020 Aug 11;95(6):e653-e661
pubmed: 32651293
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2008 Mar;164 Spec No 1:F34-5
pubmed: 18680818
J Neurosci Methods. 2015 Jul 30;250:106-13
pubmed: 25445243
Lancet Neurol. 2016 May;15(6):597-609
pubmed: 27017468
Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Mar;118(3):606-14
pubmed: 17208048
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Apr;47(4):369-421
pubmed: 33765189
Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Apr;116(4):988-9
pubmed: 15792909
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1816-31
pubmed: 25398304
Brain. 2016 Jun;139(Pt 6):e30
pubmed: 27017188
Resuscitation. 2017 Sep;118:89-95
pubmed: 28713043
Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34(5):1520-4
pubmed: 16557163
Circulation. 2015 Sep 29;132(13):1286-300
pubmed: 25391522
Resuscitation. 2016 Sep;106:89-95
pubmed: 27417560
Clin Neurophysiol. 1999 Sep;110(9):1601-10
pubmed: 10479027
Crit Care Med. 2014 Jun;42(6):1340-7
pubmed: 24463859
Brain. 2013 Jan;136(Pt 1):81-9
pubmed: 23148350
Neurophysiol Clin. 2018 Jun;48(3):143-169
pubmed: 29784540
Neurocrit Care. 2012 Dec;17(3):412-20
pubmed: 22932993
Br J Anaesth. 2023 Feb;130(2):e225-e232
pubmed: 36243578
Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Apr;129(4):724-730
pubmed: 29448148
Heart. 2003 Aug;89(8):839-42
pubmed: 12860852
Brain. 2016 Jun;139(Pt 6):e32
pubmed: 27017191
Crit Care. 2004 Dec;8(6):R483-90
pubmed: 15566595
Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):2296-301
pubmed: 18664785
Brain. 2015 Dec;138(Pt 12):e395
pubmed: 26137957
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Dec;61(6):610-5
pubmed: 8971110

Auteurs

Aymeric Floyrac (A)

Applied Mathematics and Computational Biology, Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL, Paris, France.

Adrien Doumergue (A)

Applied Mathematics and Computational Biology, Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL, Paris, France.

Stéphane Legriel (S)

Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Department, Centre Hospitalier de Versailles, Le Chesnay, France.
CESP, PsyDev Team, INSERM, UVSQ, University of Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.

Nicolas Deye (N)

Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, APHP, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France.
INSERM U942, Paris, France.

Bruno Megarbane (B)

Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, APHP, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France.
INSERM UMRS 1144, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

Alexandra Richard (A)

Service de Physiologie Clinique-Explorations Fonctionnelles, APHP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.

Elodie Meppiel (E)

Service de Physiologie Clinique-Explorations Fonctionnelles, APHP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.

Sana Masmoudi (S)

Service de Physiologie Clinique-Explorations Fonctionnelles, APHP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.

Pierre Lozeron (P)

Service de Physiologie Clinique-Explorations Fonctionnelles, APHP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
LVTS UMRS 1148, Hemostasis, Thrombo-Inflammation and Neuro-Vascular Repair, CHU Xavier Bichat Secteur Claude Bernard, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

Eric Vicaut (E)

Unité de Recherche Clinique Saint-Louis- Lariboisière, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France.

Nathalie Kubis (N)

Service de Physiologie Clinique-Explorations Fonctionnelles, APHP, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
LVTS UMRS 1148, Hemostasis, Thrombo-Inflammation and Neuro-Vascular Repair, CHU Xavier Bichat Secteur Claude Bernard, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

David Holcman (D)

Applied Mathematics and Computational Biology, Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL, Paris, France.

Classifications MeSH