Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38935167›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2024

Quantitative EEG reactivity induced by electrical stimulation predicts good outcome in comatose patients after cardiac arrest.

Gang Liu, Yuan Wang, Fei Tian, Weibi Chen, Lili Cui, Mengdi Jiang, Yan Zhang, Keming Gao, Yingying Su, Hongxing Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

10 authors.

Gang Liu *Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-0188
Yuan Wang *Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.
Fei TianDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.
Weibi ChenDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.
Lili CuiDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.
Mengdi JiangDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.
Yan ZhangDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China.
Keming GaoDepartment of Psychiatry, Mood Disorders Program, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Yingying SuDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China. suyingying@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4509-0885
Hongxing WangDepartment of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Brain Injury Evaluation Quality Control Center, National Center for Neurological Disorders, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, 100053, China. wanghongxing@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7942-9330

Funding

National Key R&D Program of China No. 2022YFC2503900Natural Science Foundation of China 81671037STI2030-Major Projects of China No. 2021ZD0204300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEEG 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.

methodsThis 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).

resultsFifty-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).

conclusionsEEG 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.

Indexed as

Cardiac arrestComaEEG reactivityPrognostication

Identifiers

PMID38935167
PMCPMC11211292

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.