Resuscitation · 2018
Does continuous EEG influence prognosis in patients after cardiac arrest?
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.
Fatuzzo Daniela, Beuchat Isabelle, Alvarez Vincent, Novy Jan, Oddo Mauro, Rossetti Andrea O
Аннотация
AIM: Electroencephalography (EEG) is a key modality for assessment of prognosis following cardiac arrest (CA); however, whether continuous EEG (cEEG) is superior to routine intermittent EEG (rEEG) remains debated. We examined the impact of cEEG (>18 h) vs. rEEG (<30 min) on outcome in comatose CA patients as part of multimodal prognostication.
METHODS: We analysed a large prospective registry of comatose post-CA adults (n = 497; 2009-2018), stratified based on whether they received cEEG (n = 62) or rEEG (n = 435), including standardized reactivity testing at two time-points. The primary endpoint was the impact of cEEG vs. rEEG on Glasgow-Pittsburgh Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) at three months; we also assessed impact on time to death.
RESULTS: Main patients' baseline clinical characteristics and CPC scores were comparable between the EEG groups. By multivariable analysis age, non-shockable rhythm, presence of early myoclonus, absent EEG background reactivity, absent somato-sensory evoked potentials, and serum NSE were independently associated with poor neurological outcome (CPC 3-5), while the EEG approach had no impact on patient prognosis and time to death.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that cEEG does not confer any advantage over intermittent rEEG regarding outcome in patients with CA, and does not influence the time to death.
METHODS: We analysed a large prospective registry of comatose post-CA adults (n = 497; 2009-2018), stratified based on whether they received cEEG (n = 62) or rEEG (n = 435), including standardized reactivity testing at two time-points. The primary endpoint was the impact of cEEG vs. rEEG on Glasgow-Pittsburgh Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) at three months; we also assessed impact on time to death.
RESULTS: Main patients' baseline clinical characteristics and CPC scores were comparable between the EEG groups. By multivariable analysis age, non-shockable rhythm, presence of early myoclonus, absent EEG background reactivity, absent somato-sensory evoked potentials, and serum NSE were independently associated with poor neurological outcome (CPC 3-5), while the EEG approach had no impact on patient prognosis and time to death.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that cEEG does not confer any advantage over intermittent rEEG regarding outcome in patients with CA, and does not influence the time to death.