Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Performance of the ERC/ESICM-recommendations for neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest: Insights from a prospective multicenter cohort

  • W. Bougouin*
  • , Lascarrou J. -B.
  • , J. Chelly
  • , S. Benghanem
  • , G. Geri
  • , J. Maizel
  • , N. Fage
  • , G. Sboui
  • , N. Pichon
  • , C. Daubin
  • , B. Sauneuf
  • , N. Mongardon
  • , F. Taccone
  • , B. Hermann
  • , G. Colin
  • , O. Lesieur
  • , N. Deye
  • , N. Chudeau
  • , M. Cour
  • , J. Bourenne
  • K. Klouche, T. Klein, Raphalen J. -H., G. Muller, A. Galbois, C. Bruel, S. Jacquier, M. Paul, Claudio Sandroni, A. Cariou
*Corresponding author
  • Paris Cardiovascular Research Center (PARCC)
  • Centre Hospitalier Toulon Sainte-Musse
  • Université Paris Cité
  • Chu Amiens
  • Université d'Angers
  • Université de Caen
  • Hôpital Henri Mondor
  • Universite Erasme
  • Hôpital européen Georges Pompidou
  • Centre Hospitalier Le Mans
  • Hospices Civils de Lyon-Centre Léon Bérard
  • Hopital La Timone
  • Institut des Neurosciences de Montpellier
  • CHU de Nancy
  • CHU de Tours
  • Hôpital Saint-Joseph
  • Centre Hospitalier de Versailles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the performance of the 2021 ERC/ESICM-recommended algorithm for predicting poor outcome after cardiac arrest (CA) and potential tools for predicting neurological recovery in patients with indeterminate outcome. Methods: Prospective, multicenter study on out-of-hospital CA survivors from 28 ICUs of the AfterROSC network. In patients comatose with a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score ≤3 at ≥72 h after resuscitation, we measured: (1) the accuracy of neurological examination, biomarkers (neuron-specific enolase, NSE), electrophysiology (EEG and SSEP) and neuroimaging (brain CT and MRI) for predicting poor outcome (modified Rankin scale score ≥4 at 90 days), and (2) the ability of low or decreasing NSE levels and benign EEG to predict good outcome in patients whose prognosis remained indeterminate. Results: Among 337 included patients, the ERC-ESICM algorithm predicted poor neurological outcome in 175 patients, and the positive predictive value for an unfavourable outcome was 100% [98–100]%. The specificity of individual predictors ranged from 90% for EEG to 100% for clinical examination and SSEP. Among the remaining 162 patients with indeterminate outcome, a combination of 2 favourable signs predicted good outcome with 99[96–100]% specificity and 23[11–38]% sensitivity. Conclusion: All comatose resuscitated patients who fulfilled the ERC-ESICM criteria for poor outcome after CA had poor outcome at three months, even if a self-fulfilling prophecy cannot be completely excluded. In patients with indeterminate outcome (half of the population), favourable signs predicted neurological recovery, reducing prognostic uncertainty.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)N/A-N/A
Number of pages9
JournalResuscitation
Volume202
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2024

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Keywords

  • Cardiac arrest
  • Coma
  • Electroencephalogram (EEG)
  • Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE)
  • Prognosis
  • Short-latency Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Performance of the ERC/ESICM-recommendations for neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest: Insights from a prospective multicenter cohort'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this