Open Access

Optimizing neurologic prognosis after cardiac arrest

Critical Care200610:171

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5085

Published: 14 November 2006

Abstract

Neurologic disability is a feared outcome of resuscitation from cardiac arrest. The study by Rech and colleagues in the previous issue of Critical Care describes the use of neuron-specific enolase to inform an early prognosis in patients who survived in-hospital cardiac arrest. In their study 'none of the patients had a DNR order and there was no limitation of life support.' As a result, 10% of patients remained in a vegetative state at 6 months, a higher percentage than in other recent studies. The existence of a population of patients in which all are fully supported without withholding care or withdrawal of care may represent an important research opportunity. High neuron-specific enolase levels have been reported in patients that awoke and seem to occur in studies with a higher percentage of patients in a vegetative state at follow-up (more uniform support). If a comprehensive set of clinical, electrophysiological, biochemical and imaging measures could be obtained in a uniform manner in a cohort of patients without limitations in care, a more objective set of comprehensive prognostic indicators could be obtained. A focused international consortium is called for.

Neurologic disability is a feared outcome of resuscitation from cardiac arrest. The study by Rech and colleagues in the previous issue of Critical Care describes the use of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) to inform an early prognosis in 43 patients who survived for more than 12 hours after resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest [1]. A reliable early neurologic prognosis can help families make decisions about continuing life-sustaining care, but also to adjust expectations. If the prognosis suggests little chance of awakening, many medical professionals and lay people feel that continuing life unconscious or vegetative can be ethically avoided – others disagree [2, 3]. Care practices at the end of life, including the withholding of and withdrawal of life-sustaining food and hydration, vary considerably across Europe, and differ by factors including region and religion of both the physician and the patient [4].

In a recent study of care after resuscitation from cardiac arrest from the United States, 69% of patients had care either withheld or withdrawn after information about prognosis was discussed with the family [5]. Compare this with Rech and colleagues' study, where 'none of the patients had a DNR order and there was no limitation of life support' [1]. It is interesting to note that despite this full support, 70% of patients died by their 6-month follow-up. Did the patients that died have further cardiac problems and eventual unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation, did they die of respiratory complications, or did they proceed to brain death? We would assume that the lack of limitation of support should increase the number of patients who remained alive but unconscious. In the study of Rech and colleagues, 10% of patients remained in a vegetative state at 6 months – compared with 0.33% (1/300) who remained vegetative at 3 months in a recent randomized trial [6] and compared with 1.7% (7/407) of patients still unconscious at 1 month in a recent multicenter cohort study [7].

In Rech and colleagues' study, a NSE cutoff value of 60 ng/ml was used, set arbitrarily just above the highest level obtained in a patient who awoke, to obtain a specificity of 100%. The highest value observed in a patient who awoke was 55.41 ng/ml [1]. Would that value have been even higher if sampling was done at 48 hours? In a recent prospective cohort study, the NSE cutoff value used was 33 ng/ml, and 241 patients (157 without treatment restrictions) were tested at 48 hours [7]. No patient with a level above the cutoff value regained consciousness, but would there have been an exception if all 241 patients had no treatment restrictions?

Higher NSE levels have been reported in patients that awoke. These include a level of 43 ng/ml on day 2 (then 90.9 ng/ml on day 3) [8], a level of 47 ng/ml at 24 hours [9], the 55.41 ng/ml level from Rech and colleagues' study [1], and just over 65 ng/ml at 3 days [10]. In this latter study, the 19% (18/97) of patients in a vegetative state at 1 month suggests more uniform continued medical support. Thus, the two studies with a higher percentage of patients in a vegetative state at follow-up also reported the highest cutoff points for NSE levels.

The 2006 Practice Parameter from the American Academy of Neurology, entitled 'Prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation', suggests that serum NSE > 33 ng/ml tested 1–3 days after cardiopulmonary resuscitation can predict poor outcome with a 0% false-positive rate (95% confidence interval, 0–3%) [11]. The above cases show that the true false-positive rate is > 0%.

It seems clear that there is a true association between higher levels of NSE, when sampled about 2–3 days after resuscitation from cardiac arrest, and worse neurologic outcomes. As we look to the future, how can we best resolve these issues surrounding the influence of limitations in care on the performance characteristics of prognostic tests?

The existence of a population of patients in which all are supported without withholding care or without withdrawal of care may represent an important research opportunity. In such a population, the continued support would inevitably lead to higher 'cutoff values' for prognostic tests with a continuous measure (for example, the serum NSE level) and would be more likely to identify exceptions to dichotomous prognostic tests (for example, somatosensory evoked potentials). As such, a more reliable estimate of the predictive value of prognostic tests could be obtained.

Research resources could be targeted to settings where limitations of care do not occur. If a comprehensive set of clinical, electrophysiological, biochemical and imaging measures could be obtained in a uniform manner in a cohort of patients without limitations in care, a more objective set of comprehensive prognostic indicators could be obtained. Specificity for any such prognostic test should be forced to 100% to maximally avoid falsely pessimistic prognoses, and the cohort size should be large enough such that the confidence interval should be a few percent or less. A focused international consortium is called for.

Abbreviations

NSE: 

neuron-specific enolase.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine

References

  1. Rech TH, Vieira SRR, Nagel F, Brauner JS, Scalco R: Serum neuron-specific enolase as early predictor of outcome after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a cohort study. Crit Care 2006, 10: R133. 10.1186/cc5046PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Donatelli LA, Geocadin RG, Williams MA: Ethical issues in critical care and cardiac arrest: clinical research, brain death, and organ donation. Semin Neurol 2006, 26: 452-459. 10.1055/s-2006-948326View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Pope John P II: Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the International Congress on 'Life-sustaining treatments and vegetative state: scientific advances and ethical dilemmas', Saturday, 20 March 2004. NeuroRehabilitation 2004, 19: 273-275.Google Scholar
  4. Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, Ledoux D, Lippert A, Maia P, Phelan D, et al.: End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus Study. JAMA 2003, 290: 790-797. 10.1001/jama.290.6.790View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Geocadin RG, Buitrago MM, Torbey MT, Chandra-Strobos N, Williams MA, Kaplan PW: Neurologic prognosis and withdrawal of life support after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Neurology 2006, 67: 105-108. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000223335.86166.b4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Longstreth WT Jr, Fahrenbruch CE, Olsufka M, Walsh TR, Copass MK, Cobb LA: Randomized clinical trial of magnesium, diazepam, or both after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Neurology 2002, 59: 506-514.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Zandbergen EG, Hijdra A, Koelman JH, Hart AA, Vos PE, Verbeek MM, de Haan RJ, PROPAC Study Group: Prediction of poor outcome within the first 3 days of postanoxic coma. Neurology 2006, 66: 62-68. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000191308.22233.88View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Zingler VC, Krumm B, Bertsch T, Fassbender K, Pohlmann-Eden B: Early prediction of neurological outcome after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a multimodal approach combining neurobiochemical and electrophysiological investigations may provide high prognostic certainty in patients after cardiac arrest. Eur Neurol 2003, 49: 79-84. 10.1159/000068503View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Martens P: Serum neuron-specific enolase as a prognostic marker for irreversible brain damage in comatose cardiac arrest survivors. Acad Emerg Med 1996, 3: 126-131.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pfeifer R, Borner A, Krack A, Sigusch HH, Surber R, Figulla HR: Outcome after cardiac arrest: predictive values and limitations of the neuroproteins neuron-specific enolase and protein S-100 and the Glasgow Coma Scale. Resuscitation 2005, 65: 49-55. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.10.011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wijdicks EF, Hijdra A, Young GB, Bassetti CL, Wiebe S: Practice parameter: prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2006, 67: 203-210. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000227183.21314.cdView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2006

Advertisement