International journal of clinical practice · 2021
The first national survey on practices of neurological prognostication after cardiac arrest in China, still a lot to do.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Du Lanfang, Zheng Kang, Feng Lu, Cao Yu, Niu Zhendong, Song Zhenju, Liu Zhi, Liu Xiaowei, Xiang Xudong, Zhou Qidi, Xiong Hui, Chen Fengying, Zhang Guoqiang, Ma Qingbian
Аннотация
AIMS: To investigate current awareness and practices of neurological prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest (CA) patients.
METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 1600 emergency physicians in 75 hospitals which were selected randomly from China between January and July 2018.
RESULTS: 92.1% respondents fulfilled the survey. The predictive value of brain stem reflex, motor response and myoclonus was confirmed by 63.5%, 44.6% and 31.7% respondents, respectively. Only 30.7% knew that GWR value < 1.1 indicated poor prognosis and only 8.1% know the most commonly used SSEP N20. Status epilepticus, burst suppression and suppression were considered to predict poor outcome by only 35.0%, 27.4% and 20.9% respondents, respectively. Only 46.7% knew NSE and only 24.7% knew S-100. Only a few respondents knew that neurological prognostication should be performed later than 72 hours from CA either in TTM or non-TTM patients. In practice, the most commonly used method was clinical examination (85.4%). Only 67.9% had used brain CT for prognosis and 18.4% for MRI. NSE (39.6%) was a little more widely used than S-100β (18.0%). However, SSEP (4.4%) and EEG (11.4%) were occasionally performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Neurological prognostication in CA survivors had not been well understood and performed by emergency physicians in China. They were more likely to use clinical examination rather than objective tools, especially SSEP and EEG, which also illustrated that multimodal approach was not well performed in practice.
METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 1600 emergency physicians in 75 hospitals which were selected randomly from China between January and July 2018.
RESULTS: 92.1% respondents fulfilled the survey. The predictive value of brain stem reflex, motor response and myoclonus was confirmed by 63.5%, 44.6% and 31.7% respondents, respectively. Only 30.7% knew that GWR value < 1.1 indicated poor prognosis and only 8.1% know the most commonly used SSEP N20. Status epilepticus, burst suppression and suppression were considered to predict poor outcome by only 35.0%, 27.4% and 20.9% respondents, respectively. Only 46.7% knew NSE and only 24.7% knew S-100. Only a few respondents knew that neurological prognostication should be performed later than 72 hours from CA either in TTM or non-TTM patients. In practice, the most commonly used method was clinical examination (85.4%). Only 67.9% had used brain CT for prognosis and 18.4% for MRI. NSE (39.6%) was a little more widely used than S-100β (18.0%). However, SSEP (4.4%) and EEG (11.4%) were occasionally performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Neurological prognostication in CA survivors had not been well understood and performed by emergency physicians in China. They were more likely to use clinical examination rather than objective tools, especially SSEP and EEG, which also illustrated that multimodal approach was not well performed in practice.