Search

Purpose Post-resuscitation guidelines recommend a multimodal algorithm for outcome prediction after cardiac arrest (CA). We aimed at evaluating the prevalence of indeterminate prognosis after application of this algorithm and providing a strategy for improving prognostication in this population. Methods We examined a prospective cohort of comatose CA patients (n = 485) in whom the ERC/ESICM algorithm was applied. In patients with an indeterminate outcome, prognostication was investigated using standardized EEG classification (benign, malignant, highly malignant) and serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE). Neurological recovery at 3 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Categories [CPC] 1-2) vs. poor (CPC 3-5). Results Using the ERC/ESICM algorithm, 155 (32%) patients were prognosticated with poor outcome; all died at 3 months. Among the remaining 330 (68%) patients with an indeterminate outcome, the majority (212/330; 64%) showed good recovery. In this patient subgroup, absence of a highly malignant EEG by day 3 had 99.5 [97.4-99.9] % sensitivity for good recovery, which was superior to NSE < 33 [mu]g/L (84.9 [79.3-89.4] % when used alone; 84.4 [78.8-89] % when combined with EEG, both p < 0.001). Highly malignant EEG had equal specificity (99.5 [97.4-99.9] %) but higher sensitivity than NSE for poor recovery. Further analysis of the discriminative power of outcome predictors revealed limited value of NSE over EEG. Conclusions In the majority of comatose CA patients, the outcome remains indeterminate after application of ERC/ESICM prognostication algorithm. Standardized EEG background analysis enables accurate prediction of both good and poor recovery, thereby greatly reducing uncertainty about coma prognostication in this patient population., Author(s): Filippo Bongiovanni [sup.1] [sup.2], Federico Romagnosi [sup.1] [sup.3], Giuseppina Barbella [sup.4] [sup.5], Arianna Di Rocco [sup.6], Andrea O. Rossetti [sup.4], Fabio Silvio Taccone [sup.7], Claudio Sandroni [sup.2], Mauro Oddo [...]

Objectives: Although in epilepsy patients the likelihood of becoming seizure‐free decreases substantially with each unsuccessful treatment, to our knowledge this has been poorly investigated in status epilepticus (SE). We aimed to evaluate the proportion of SE cessation and functional outcome after successive treatment steps. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort (Sustained Effort Network for treatment of Status Epilepticus [SENSE]), in which 1049 incident adult SE episodes were prospectively recorded at nine European centers. We analyzed 996 SE episodes without coma induction before the third treatment step. Rates of SE cessation, mortality (in ongoing SE or after SE control), and favorable functional outcome (assessed with modified Rankin scale) were evaluated after each step. Results: SE was treated successfully in 838 patients (84.1%), 147 (14.8%) had a fatal outcome (36% of them died while still in SE), and 11 patients were transferred to palliative care while still in SE. Patients were treated with a median of three treatment steps (range 1–13), with 540 (54.2%) receiving more than two steps (refractory SE [RSE]) and 95 (9.5%) more than five steps. SE was controlled after the first two steps in 45%, with an additional 21% treated after the third, and 14% after the fourth step. Likelihood of SE cessation (p < 0.001), survival (p = 0.003), and reaching good functional outcome (p < 0.001) decreased significantly between the first two treatment lines and the third, especially in patients not experiencing generalized convulsive SE, but remained relatively stable afterwards. Significance: The significant worsening of SE prognosis after the second step clinically supports the concept of RSE. However, and differing from findings in human epilepsy, RSE remains treatable in about one third of patients, even after several failed treatment steps. Clinical judgment remains essential to determine the aggressiveness and duration of SE treatment, and to avoid premature treatment cessation in patients with SE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electroencephalography (EEG) has long been used to detect seizures in patients with disorders of consciousness. In recent years, there has been a drastically increased adoption of continuous EEG (cEEG) in the intensive care units (ICUs). Given the resources necessary to record and interpret cEEG, this is still not available in every center and widespread recommendations to use continuous instead of routine EEG (typically lasting 20 min) are still a matter of some debate. Considering recent literature and personal experience, this review offers a rationale and practical advice to address this question. Summary: Despite the development of increasingly performant imaging techniques and several validated biomarkers, EEG remains central to clinicians in the intensive care unit and has been experiencing expanding popularity for at least 2 decades. Not only does EEG allow seizure or status epilepticus detection, which in the ICU often present without clinical movements, but it is also paramount for the prognostic evaluation of comatose patients, especially after cardiac arrest, and for detecting delayed ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the end of the last Century, improvements of technical and digital aspects regarding recording and storage of EEG tracings have progressively led to the era of cEEG and automated quantitative analysis. Key Messages: As compared to repeated rEEG, cEEG in comatose patients does not seem to improve clinical prognosis to a relevant extent, despite allowing a more performant of detection ictal events and consequent therapeutic modifications. The choice between cEEG and rEEG must therefore always be patient-tailored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]