Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36949360›Full record

GuidelineNeurocritical care2023

Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Comatose Adult Survivors of Cardiac Arrest.

Venkatakrishna Rajajee, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Katja E Wartenberg, Sheila A Alexander, Katharina M Busl, Sherry H Y Chou, Claire J Creutzfeldt, Gabriel V Fontaine, Herbert Fried, Sara E Hocker and 11 more

Abstract readGuidelineSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Guideline in Neurocritical care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

107 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Venkatakrishna RajajeeDepartments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, 3552 Taubman Health Care Center, SPC 5338, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5338, USA. vrajajee@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7183-8324
Susanne MuehlschlegelDepartments of Neurology, Anesthesiology, and Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Katja E WartenbergDepartment of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Sheila A AlexanderSchool of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Katharina M BuslDepartments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Sherry H Y ChouDepartment of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Claire J CreutzfeldtDepartment of Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gabriel V FontaineDepartments of Pharmacy and Neurosciences, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Herbert FriedDepartment of Neurosurgery, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA.
Sara E HockerDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
David Y HwangDepartment of Neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Keri S KimPharmacy Practice, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Dominik MadzarDepartment of Neurology, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Dea MahanesDepartments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Shraddha MainaliDepartment of Neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Juergen MeixensbergerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Felipe MontellanoDepartment of Neurology, University of Wuerzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Oliver W SakowitzDepartment of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery Center Ludwigsburg-Heilbronn, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Christian WeimarInstitute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Thomas WestermaierDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Wuerzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Panayiotis N VarelasDepartment of Neurology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmong cardiac arrest survivors, about half remain comatose 72 h following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Prognostication of poor neurological outcome in this population may result in withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and death. The objective of this article is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select clinical predictors that serve as the basis of neuroprognostication and provide guidance to clinicians counseling surrogates of comatose cardiac arrest survivors.

methodsA narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, which included clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of evidence. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: "When counseling surrogates of comatose adult survivors of cardiac arrest, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of poor functional outcome assessed at 3 months or later?" Additional full-text screening criteria were used to exclude small and lower-quality studies. Following construction of the evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four GRADE criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in PICOTS format.

resultsEleven candidate clinical variables and three prediction models were selected based on clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of literature. A total of 72 articles met our eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. Good practice recommendations include waiting 72 h following ROSC/rewarming prior to neuroprognostication, avoiding sedation or other confounders, the use of multimodal assessment, and an extended period of observation for awakening in patients with an indeterminate prognosis, if consistent with goals of care. The bilateral absence of pupillary light response > 72 h from ROSC and the bilateral absence of N20 response on somatosensory evoked potential testing were identified as reliable predictors. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain > 48 h from ROSC and electroencephalography > 72 h from ROSC were identified as moderately reliable predictors.

conclusionsThese guidelines provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of poor outcome in the context of counseling surrogates of comatose survivors of cardiac arrest and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Few predictors were considered reliable or moderately reliable based on the available body of evidence.

Indexed as

Heart ArrestHypothermia, InducedAdultComaHumansPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsSurvivorsCardiac arrestComaFunctional statusMortalityPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID36949360
PMCPMC10241762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.