Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40770665›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2025

Neurofilament light chain for prognostication after cardiac arrest-first steps towards validation.

Martin A S Meyer, Rasmus P Beske, Simon Mølstrøm, Johannes Grand, Laust E R Obling, Sebastian Wiberg, Britt Borregaard, Simon Schneekloth, Sif Grau Kaad, Pernille M Christensen and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03141099 (Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post-resuscitation Care, a Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03141099 nacompletednot on this map

Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post-resuscitation Care, a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorJesper KjaergaardRan2017 to 2022Enrolled802ConditionsOut-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Blood Pressure, Hemodynamic InstabilityArmsLow normal MAP, High normal MAP, Low normal PaO2., High normal PaO2
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

16 authors.

Martin A S MeyerDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark. Martin.abild.stengaard.meyer@regionh.dk.
Rasmus P BeskeDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Simon MølstrømDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Johannes GrandDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Laust E R OblingDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Sebastian WibergDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Britt BorregaardDepartment of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Simon SchneeklothDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Sif Grau KaadDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pernille M ChristensenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christina ChristoffersenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ruth Frikke-SchmidtDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik SchmidtDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Jacob E MøllerDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Jesper KjaergaardDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Christian HassagerDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfter cardiac arrest, many patients remain comatose, and a substantial proportion do not survive. Neuroprognostication is essential for identifying patients with potential for recovery, and those with severe, irreversible hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a blood-based marker of neuronal injury that is under evaluation for neuroprognostication. NfL have potential advantages over the currently only guideline recommended blood biomarker for neuroprognostication, neuron-specific enolase, including earlier applicability. However, there is no consensus on optimal NfL cut-off levels. A previous large investigation in OHCA patients, identified NfL thresholds with high specificity for poor outcome, and the purpose of the present investigation is to validate these cutoffs.

methodsThe Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial included OHCA patients who were comatose at admission. Patients with at least one plasma biobank sample available at 24-48 h were included in this investigation. NfL was quantified by ELISA. Cerebral performance category score was estimated at 1 year. Diagnostic precision of NfL for prediction of poor neurologic outcome (CPC > 2) was determined by area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC), and the performance of previously identified cut-offs for a specificity of 100% were investigated.

resultsA total of 638 patients had a NfL measurement at either 24 or 48 h. The AUROC for prediction of poor neurologic outcome was 0.95 and 0.95 at 24 and 48 h, respectively. At 24 h, a cut-off of 1232 pg/mL had a specificity of 98%, for prediction of poor neurologic outcome, and false-positive results for 7 patients (1.4%). At 48 h, a cut-off of 1539 pg/ml similarly had a specificity of 98%, and false-positive results for 7 patients (1.3%).

conclusionsThe results of this investigation confirm the prognostic value of NfL for identification of risk of poor neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. Previously identified cut-offs of 1232 pg/mL at 24 h, and 1539 pg/mL at 48 h, performed excellent with a very high specificity. This indicates that application of NfL will allow for reliable neuroprognostication as early as 24 h after cardiac arrest.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03141099, registered April 30 2017.

Indexed as

Heart ArrestNeurofilament ProteinsAgedBiomarkersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestPrognosisROC CurveBiomarkersneurofilament protein LNeurofilament ProteinsCardiac arrestNeurofilament light chainNeurologic outcomeNeuroprognosticationNfL

Identifiers

PMID40770665
PMCPMC12326608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.