Outcome Prediction after Cardiac Arrest Treated with Hypothermia

Rationale: Clinical and electrophysiological prognostic markers of brain anoxia have been mostly evaluated in comatose survivors of out hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after standard resuscitation, but their predictive value in patients treated with mild induced hypothermia (IH) is unknown. The objective of this study was to identify a predictive score of independent clinical and electrophysiological variables in comatose OHCA survivors treated with IH, aiming at a maximal positive predictive value (PPV) and a high negative predictive value (NPV) for mortality. Methods: We prospectively studied consecutive adult comatose OHCA survivors from April 2006 to May 2009, treated with mild IH to 33-34_C for 24h at the intensive care unit of the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. IH was applied using an external cooling method. As soon as subjects passively rewarmed (body temperature >35_C) they underwent EEG and SSEP recordings (off sedation), and were examined by experienced neurologists at least twice. Patients with status epilepticus were treated with AED for at least 24h. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality at hospital discharge. These were used to formulate a predictive score. Results: 100 patients were studied; 61 died. Age, gender and OHCA etiology (cardiac vs. non-cardiac) did not differ among survivors and nonsurvivors. Cardiac arrest type (non-ventricular fibrillation vs. ventricular fibrillation), time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) >25min, failure to recover all brainstem reflexes, extensor or no motor response to pain, myoclonus, presence of epileptiform discharges on EEG, EEG background unreactive to pain, and bilaterally absent N20 on SSEP, were all significantly associated with mortality. Absent N20 was the only variable showing no false positive results. Multivariable logistic regression identified four independent predictors (Table). These were used to construct the score, and its predictive values were calculated after a cut-off of 0-1 vs. 2-4 predictors. We found a PPV of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00), a NPV of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.91) and an accuracy of 0.93 for mortality. Among 9 patients who were predicted to survive by the score but eventually died, only 1 had absent N20. Conclusions: Pending validation in a larger cohort, this simple score represents a promising tool to identify patients who will survive, and most subjects who will not, after OHCA and IH. Furthermore, while SSEP are 100% predictive of poor outcome but not available in most hospitals, this study identifies EEG background reactivity as an important predictor after OHCA. The score appears robust even without SSEP, suggesting that SSEP and other investigations (e.g., mismatch negativity, serum NSE) might be principally needed to enhance prognostication in the small subgroup of patients failing to improve despite a favorable score.