EEG patterns associated with present cortical SSEP after cardiac arrest

Myoclonus After Cardiac Arrest did not Correlate with Cortical Response on Somatosensory Evoked Potentials

PurposeMyoclonus after anoxic brain injury is a marker of significant cerebral injury. Absent cortical signal (N20) on somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) after cardiac arrest is a reliable predictor of poor neurological recovery when combined with an overall clinical picture consistent with severe widespread neurological injury. We evaluated a clinical question of if SSEP result could be predicted from other clinical and neurodiagnostic testing results in patients with post-anoxic myoclonus.MethodsRetrospective chart review of all adult patients with post-cardiac arrest myoclonus who underwent both electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring and SSEPs for neuroprognostication. Myoclonus was categorized as "non-myoclonic movements," "myoclonus not captured on EEG," "myoclonus without EEG correlate," "myoclonus with EEG correlate," and "status myoclonus." SSEP results were categorized as all absent, all present, N18 and N20 absent bilaterally, and N20 only absent bilaterally. Cox proportional hazards with censoring was used to evaluate the association of myoclonus category, SSEP results, and confounding factors with survival.ResultsIn 56 patients, median time from arrest to either confirmed death or last follow up was 9 days. The category of myoclonus was not associated with SSEP result or length of survival. Absence of N20 s or N18 s was associated with shorter survival (N20 hazard ratio [HR] 4.4, p = 0.0014; N18 HR 5.5, p < 0.00001).ConclusionsCategory of myoclonus did not reliably predict SSEP result. SSEP result was correlated with outcome consistently, but goals of care transitioned to comfort measures only in all patients with present peripheral potentials and either absent N20 s only or absence of N18 s and N20 s. Our results suggest that SSEPs may retain prognostic value in patients with post-anoxic myoclonus.

Automated Pupillometry for Prediction of Electroencephalographic Reactivity in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Electroencephalography (EEG) is widely used to monitor critically ill patients. However, EEG interpretation requires the presence of an experienced neurophysiologist and is time-consuming. Aim of this study was to evaluate whether parameters derived from an automated pupillometer (AP) might help to assess the degree of cerebral dysfunction in critically ill patients.

Methods

Prospective study conducted in the Department of Intensive Care of Erasme University Hospital in Brussels, Belgium. Pupillary assessments were performed using the AP in three subgroups of patients, concomitantly monitored with continuous EEG: "anoxic brain injury", "Non-anoxic brain injury" and "other diseases". An independent neurologist blinded to patient's history and AP results scored the degree of encephalopathy and reactivity on EEG using a standardized scale. The mean value of Neurologic Pupil Index (NPi), pupillary size, constriction rate, constriction and dilation velocity (CV and DV) and latency for both eyes, obtained using the NPi®-200 (Neuroptics, Laguna Hills, CA, USA), were reported.

Results

We included 214 patients (mean age 60 years, 55% male). EEG tracings were categorized as: mild (n = 111, 52%), moderate (n = 65, 30%) or severe (n = 16, 8%) encephalopathy; burst-suppression (n = 19, 9%) or suppression background (n = 3, 1%); a total of 38 (18%) EEG were classified as "unreactive". We found a significant difference in all pupillometry variables among different EEG categories. Moreover, an unreactive EEG was associated with lower NPi, pupil size, pupillary reactivity, CV and DV and a higher latency than reactive recordings. Low DV (Odds ratio 0.020 [95% confidence intervals 0.002-0.163]; p < 0.01) was independently associated with an unreactive EEG, together with the use of analgesic/sedative drugs and high lactate concentrations. In particular, DV values had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 [0.79-0.92; p < 0.01] to predict the presence of unreactive EEG. In subgroups analyses, AUC of DV to predict unreactive EEG was lower (0.72 [0.56-0.87]; p < 0.01) in anoxic brain injury than Non-anoxic brain injury (0.92 [0.85-1.00]; p < 0.01) and other diseases (0.96 [0.90-1.00]; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

This study suggests that low DV measured by the AP might effectively identify an unreactive EEG background, in particular in critically ill patients without anoxic brain injury.

SSEP N20 and P25 amplitudes predict poor and good neurologic outcomes after cardiac arrest

Background

To assess in comatose patients after cardiac arrest (CA) if amplitudes of two somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) responses, namely, N20-baseline (N20-b) and N20–P25, are predictive of neurological outcome.

Methods

Monocentric prospective study in a tertiary cardiac center between Nov 2019 and July-2021. All patients comatose at 72 h after CA with at least one SSEP recorded were included. The N20-b and N20–P25 amplitudes were automatically measured in microvolts (µV), along with other recommended prognostic markers (status myoclonus, neuron-specific enolase levels at 2 and 3 days, and EEG pattern). We assessed the predictive value of SSEP for neurologic outcome using the best Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC1 or 2 as good outcome) at 3 months (main endpoint) and 6 months (secondary endpoint). Specificity and sensitivity of different thresholds of SSEP amplitudes, alone or in combination with other prognostic markers, were calculated.

Results

Among 82 patients, a poor outcome (CPC 3–5) was observed in 78% of patients at 3 months. The median time to SSEP recording was 3(2–4) days after CA, with a pattern “bilaterally absent” in 19 patients, “unilaterally present” in 4, and “bilaterally present” in 59 patients. The median N20-b amplitudes were different between patients with poor and good outcomes, i.e., 0.93 [0–2.05]µV vs. 1.56 [1.24–2.75]µV, respectively (p < 0.0001), as the median N20–P25 amplitudes (0.57 [0–1.43]µV in poor outcome vs. 2.64 [1.39–3.80]µV in good outcome patients p < 0.0001). An N20-b > 2 µV predicted good outcome with a specificity of 73% and a moderate sensitivity of 39%, although an N20–P25 > 3.2 µV was 93% specific and only 30% sensitive. A low voltage N20-b < 0.88 µV and N20–P25 < 1 µV predicted poor outcome with a high specificity (sp = 94% and 93%, respectively) and a moderate sensitivity (se = 50% and 66%). Association of “bilaterally absent or low voltage SSEP” patterns increased the sensitivity significantly as compared to “bilaterally absent” SSEP alone (se = 58 vs. 30%, p = 0.002) for prediction of poor outcome.

Conclusion

In comatose patient after CA, both N20-b and N20–P25 amplitudes could predict both good and poor outcomes with high specificity but low to moderate sensitivity. Our results suggest that caution is needed regarding SSEP amplitudes in clinical routine, and that these indicators should be used in a multimodal approach for prognostication after cardiac arrest.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-00999-6.

European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2021: post-resuscitation care

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) have collaborated to produce these post-resuscitation care guidelines for adults, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include the post-cardiac arrest syndrome, diagnosis of cause of cardiac arrest, control of oxygenation and ventilation, coronary reperfusion, haemodynamic monitoring and management, control of seizures, temperature control, general intensive care management, prognostication, long-term outcome, rehabilitation and organ donation.

European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Guidelines 2021: Post-resuscitation care

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) have collaborated to produce these post-resuscitation care guidelines for adults, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include the post-cardiac arrest syndrome, diagnosis of cause of cardiac arrest, control of oxygenation and ventilation, coronary reperfusion, haemodynamic monitoring and management, control of seizures, temperature control, general intensive care management, prognostication, long-term outcome, rehabilitation, and organ donation.