电刺激引起的定量脑电图反应可预测心脏骤停后昏迷患者的良好预后。

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Annals of Intensive Care Pub Date : 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1186/s13613-024-01339-6
Gang Liu, Yuan Wang, Fei Tian, Weibi Chen, Lili Cui, Mengdi Jiang, Yan Zhang, Keming Gao, Yingying Su, Hongxing Wang
{"title":"电刺激引起的定量脑电图反应可预测心脏骤停后昏迷患者的良好预后。","authors":"Gang Liu, Yuan Wang, Fei Tian, Weibi Chen, Lili Cui, Mengdi Jiang, Yan Zhang, Keming Gao, Yingying Su, Hongxing Wang","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01339-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>EEG reactivity is a predictor for neurological outcome in comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA); however, its application is limited by variability in stimulus types and visual assessment. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity induced by standardized electrical stimulation and for early prognostication in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study recruited post-CA comatose patients in Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University (Beijing, China) between January 2016 and June 2023. EEG reactivity to electrical or traditional pain stimulation was randomly performed via visual and quantitative analysis. Neurological outcome within 6 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Categories, CPC 1-2) or poor (CPC 3-5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-eight post-CA comatose patients were admitted, and 52 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 19 (36.5%) had good outcomes. EEG reactivity induced with the electrical stimulation had superior performance to the traditional pain stimulation for good outcome prediction (quantitative analysis: AUC 0.932 vs. 0.849, p = 0.048). When using the electrical stimulation, the AUC of EEG reactivity to predict good outcome by visual analysis was 0.838, increasing to 0.932 by quantitative analysis (p = 0.039). Comparing to the traditional pain stimulation by visual analysis, the AUC of EEG reactivity for good prognostication by the electrical stimulation with quantitative analysis was significantly improved (0.932 vs. 0.770, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EEG reactivity induced by the standardized electrical stimulation in combination with quantitative analysis is a promising formula for post-CA comatose patients, with increased predictive accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"99"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11211292/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative EEG reactivity induced by electrical stimulation predicts good outcome in comatose patients after cardiac arrest.\",\"authors\":\"Gang Liu, Yuan Wang, Fei Tian, Weibi Chen, Lili Cui, Mengdi Jiang, Yan Zhang, Keming Gao, Yingying Su, Hongxing Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13613-024-01339-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>EEG reactivity is a predictor for neurological outcome in comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA); however, its application is limited by variability in stimulus types and visual assessment. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity induced by standardized electrical stimulation and for early prognostication in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study recruited post-CA comatose patients in Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University (Beijing, China) between January 2016 and June 2023. EEG reactivity to electrical or traditional pain stimulation was randomly performed via visual and quantitative analysis. Neurological outcome within 6 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Categories, CPC 1-2) or poor (CPC 3-5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-eight post-CA comatose patients were admitted, and 52 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 19 (36.5%) had good outcomes. EEG reactivity induced with the electrical stimulation had superior performance to the traditional pain stimulation for good outcome prediction (quantitative analysis: AUC 0.932 vs. 0.849, p = 0.048). When using the electrical stimulation, the AUC of EEG reactivity to predict good outcome by visual analysis was 0.838, increasing to 0.932 by quantitative analysis (p = 0.039). Comparing to the traditional pain stimulation by visual analysis, the AUC of EEG reactivity for good prognostication by the electrical stimulation with quantitative analysis was significantly improved (0.932 vs. 0.770, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EEG reactivity induced by the standardized electrical stimulation in combination with quantitative analysis is a promising formula for post-CA comatose patients, with increased predictive accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11211292/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01339-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01339-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脑电图反应性是预测心脏骤停(CA)后昏迷患者神经系统预后的一个指标;然而,其应用受到刺激类型和视觉评估差异的限制。我们的目的是评估标准化电刺激诱导的脑电图反应性定量分析的预后价值,以及对这一人群进行早期预后评估的价值:这项前瞻性观察研究招募了2016年1月至2023年6月期间首都医科大学宣武医院(中国北京)的CA昏迷后患者。通过视觉和定量分析,随机对电刺激或传统疼痛刺激进行脑电图反应。6个月内的神经功能预后分为良好(脑功能分类,CPC 1-2)或不良(CPC 3-5):结果:共收治了 58 名脑缺氧后昏迷患者,最终分析包括 52 名患者,其中 19 名(36.5%)预后良好。在良好预后预测方面,电刺激诱导的脑电图反应优于传统的疼痛刺激(定量分析:AUC 0.932 vs. 0.849,p = 0.048)。使用电刺激时,通过视觉分析预测良好结果的脑电图反应性的AUC为0.838,通过定量分析增加到0.932(p = 0.039)。与传统的视觉分析疼痛刺激相比,定量分析电刺激预测良好预后的脑电图反应性 AUC 显著提高(0.932 vs. 0.770,p = 0.004):结论:标准化电刺激结合定量分析所诱导的脑电图反应性是CA后昏迷患者的一种有前途的公式,可提高预测准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quantitative EEG reactivity induced by electrical stimulation predicts good outcome in comatose patients after cardiac arrest.

Background: EEG reactivity is a predictor for neurological outcome in comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA); however, its application is limited by variability in stimulus types and visual assessment. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the quantitative analysis of EEG reactivity induced by standardized electrical stimulation and for early prognostication in this population.

Methods: This prospective observational study recruited post-CA comatose patients in Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University (Beijing, China) between January 2016 and June 2023. EEG reactivity to electrical or traditional pain stimulation was randomly performed via visual and quantitative analysis. Neurological outcome within 6 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Categories, CPC 1-2) or poor (CPC 3-5).

Results: Fifty-eight post-CA comatose patients were admitted, and 52 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 19 (36.5%) had good outcomes. EEG reactivity induced with the electrical stimulation had superior performance to the traditional pain stimulation for good outcome prediction (quantitative analysis: AUC 0.932 vs. 0.849, p = 0.048). When using the electrical stimulation, the AUC of EEG reactivity to predict good outcome by visual analysis was 0.838, increasing to 0.932 by quantitative analysis (p = 0.039). Comparing to the traditional pain stimulation by visual analysis, the AUC of EEG reactivity for good prognostication by the electrical stimulation with quantitative analysis was significantly improved (0.932 vs. 0.770, p = 0.004).

Conclusions: EEG reactivity induced by the standardized electrical stimulation in combination with quantitative analysis is a promising formula for post-CA comatose patients, with increased predictive accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
期刊最新文献
Alteplase in COVID-19 severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: the TRISTARDS multicenter randomized trial. Angiopoietin-2 as a prognostic biomarker in septic adult patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Editorial: Severe bleeding events among critically ill patients with hematological malignancies. Changes in portal pulsatility index induced by a fluid challenge in patients with haemodynamic instability and systemic venous congestion: a prospective cohort study. Corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: benefit from rational use - authors' reply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1