Neurocritical care · 2021
The Association Between Neurological Prognosis and the Degree of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Cardiac Arrest Survivors Who Underwent Target Temperature Management.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jeon Ga Ram, Ahn Hong Joon, Park Jung Soo, Yoo Insool, You Yeonho, Cho Yong Chul, Jeong Wonjoon, Kang Changshin, Lee Byung Kook
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare day-specific associations of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption with neurological outcome in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treated with target temperature management (TTM) and lumbar drainage.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 68 survivors of OHCA who underwent TTM between April 2018 and December 2019. The albumin quotient (QA) was calculated as QA = albumincerebrospinal fluid/albuminserum immediately (day 1) and 24 (day 2), 48 (day 3), and 72 h (day 4) after the return of spontaneous circulation. The degree of BBB disruption was weighted using the following scoring system: QA value of 0.007 or less (normal), QA value greater than 0.007-0.01 (mild), QA value greater than 0.01-0.02 (moderate), and QA value greater than 0.02 (severe). Points were assigned as follows: 0 (normal), 1 (mild), 4 (moderate), and 9 (severe). Neurological outcome was determined at 6 months after the return of spontaneous circulation, as well as cerebral performance category (CPC), dichotomized as good (CPC score 1-2) and poor (CPC score 3-5) outcome.
RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients (48 men, 71%); 37 (54%) patients had a poor neurological outcome. The distributions of poor versus good outcomes at 6 months in patients with moderate and severe BBB disruption were 19 of 22 (80%) vs. 18 of 46 (50%) on day 1, 31 of 37 (79%) vs. 6 of 31 (32%) on day 2, 32 of 37 (81%) vs. 5 of 31 (30%) on day 3, and 32 of 39 (85%) vs. 5 of 29 (30%) on day 4 (P < 0.001), respectively. Using receiver operating characteristic analyses, optimal cutoff values (sensitivity, specificity) of QA levels for the prediction of neurological outcome were as follows: day 1, greater than 0.009 (56.8%, 87.1%); day 2, greater than 0.012 (81.1%, 87.1%); day 3, greater than 0.013 (83.8%, 87.1%); day 4, greater than 0.013 (86.5%, 87.1%); the sum of all time points, greater than 0.039 (89.5%, 79.4%); and scoring system, greater than 9 (91.9%, 87.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this proof of concept study, QA was associated with poor neurological outcome in survivors of OHCA treated with TTM with no contraindication to lumbar drainage. A large multicenter prospective study is needed to validate the utility of BBB disruption as a prognosticator of neurological outcome.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 68 survivors of OHCA who underwent TTM between April 2018 and December 2019. The albumin quotient (QA) was calculated as QA = albumincerebrospinal fluid/albuminserum immediately (day 1) and 24 (day 2), 48 (day 3), and 72 h (day 4) after the return of spontaneous circulation. The degree of BBB disruption was weighted using the following scoring system: QA value of 0.007 or less (normal), QA value greater than 0.007-0.01 (mild), QA value greater than 0.01-0.02 (moderate), and QA value greater than 0.02 (severe). Points were assigned as follows: 0 (normal), 1 (mild), 4 (moderate), and 9 (severe). Neurological outcome was determined at 6 months after the return of spontaneous circulation, as well as cerebral performance category (CPC), dichotomized as good (CPC score 1-2) and poor (CPC score 3-5) outcome.
RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients (48 men, 71%); 37 (54%) patients had a poor neurological outcome. The distributions of poor versus good outcomes at 6 months in patients with moderate and severe BBB disruption were 19 of 22 (80%) vs. 18 of 46 (50%) on day 1, 31 of 37 (79%) vs. 6 of 31 (32%) on day 2, 32 of 37 (81%) vs. 5 of 31 (30%) on day 3, and 32 of 39 (85%) vs. 5 of 29 (30%) on day 4 (P < 0.001), respectively. Using receiver operating characteristic analyses, optimal cutoff values (sensitivity, specificity) of QA levels for the prediction of neurological outcome were as follows: day 1, greater than 0.009 (56.8%, 87.1%); day 2, greater than 0.012 (81.1%, 87.1%); day 3, greater than 0.013 (83.8%, 87.1%); day 4, greater than 0.013 (86.5%, 87.1%); the sum of all time points, greater than 0.039 (89.5%, 79.4%); and scoring system, greater than 9 (91.9%, 87.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this proof of concept study, QA was associated with poor neurological outcome in survivors of OHCA treated with TTM with no contraindication to lumbar drainage. A large multicenter prospective study is needed to validate the utility of BBB disruption as a prognosticator of neurological outcome.