The capacity of neurological pupil index to predict the absence of somatosensory evoked potentials after cardiac arrest - An observational study.
Cardiac arrest
Neurological outcome
Neurological pupil index
Prognostication
Pupillometry
Somatosensory evoked potentials
Journal
Resuscitation plus
ISSN: 2666-5204
Titre abrégé: Resusc Plus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101774410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2024
Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
22
12
2023
revised:
17
01
2024
accepted:
21
01
2024
medline:
8
2
2024
pubmed:
8
2
2024
entrez:
8
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In neurologic prognostication of comatose survivors from cardiac arrest, two independent predictors of poor outcome are the loss of the Pupillary light reflex (PLR) and the loss of the N20 response from Somatosensory Evoked potentials (SSEP). The PLR can be quantitatively assessed by pupillometry. Both tests depend on the midbrain, in which a dysfunction reflects a severe hypoxic injury. We reasoned that a certain level of defective PLR would be predictive of a bilaterally absent SSEP N20 response. Neurological Pupil index (NPi) from the pupillometry and the SSEP N20 response were registered >48 h after cardiac arrest in comatose survivors. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the capacity of NPi to predict bilaterally absent SSEP N20 response. An NPi threshold value resulting in <5% false positive rate (FPR) for bilaterally absent N20 response was identified. From February 2020 to August 2022, we included 54 patients out of which 49 had conclusive pupillometry and SSEP examinations. The NPi threshold value with FPR < 5% was 3.4, yielding 36% sensitivity (95% CI 18-55) and significantly discriminated between respective groups with preserved and bilaterally absent N20 response to SSEP ( In this limited cohort, NPi < 3.4 in patients remaining comatose >48 hours after cardiac arrest predicted bilateral loss of the SSEP N20 response with a FPR < 5%. If validated in a larger cohort, an NPi threshold may be clinically applied in settings where SSEP is unavailable.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
In neurologic prognostication of comatose survivors from cardiac arrest, two independent predictors of poor outcome are the loss of the Pupillary light reflex (PLR) and the loss of the N20 response from Somatosensory Evoked potentials (SSEP). The PLR can be quantitatively assessed by pupillometry. Both tests depend on the midbrain, in which a dysfunction reflects a severe hypoxic injury. We reasoned that a certain level of defective PLR would be predictive of a bilaterally absent SSEP N20 response.
Method
UNASSIGNED
Neurological Pupil index (NPi) from the pupillometry and the SSEP N20 response were registered >48 h after cardiac arrest in comatose survivors. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the capacity of NPi to predict bilaterally absent SSEP N20 response. An NPi threshold value resulting in <5% false positive rate (FPR) for bilaterally absent N20 response was identified.
Results
UNASSIGNED
From February 2020 to August 2022, we included 54 patients out of which 49 had conclusive pupillometry and SSEP examinations. The NPi threshold value with FPR < 5% was 3.4, yielding 36% sensitivity (95% CI 18-55) and significantly discriminated between respective groups with preserved and bilaterally absent N20 response to SSEP (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
In this limited cohort, NPi < 3.4 in patients remaining comatose >48 hours after cardiac arrest predicted bilateral loss of the SSEP N20 response with a FPR < 5%. If validated in a larger cohort, an NPi threshold may be clinically applied in settings where SSEP is unavailable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38328749
doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100567
pii: S2666-5204(24)00018-3
pmc: PMC10848026
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100567Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.