2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.10.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Post resuscitation prognostication by EEG in 24 vs 48 h of targeted temperature management

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
0
4

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
30
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…For those 28 patients, 16 (57%) patients underwent EEG examination after 24 h following ROSC. These results are supported by a recent study from Duez et al [25]. They found no differences between prognostication at 24 h compared to 48 h, measured via the specificity and sensitivity of EEG categories, but when using EEG reactivity, prognostication was the best at 24 h compared to 48 h [25].…”
Section: The Prognostic Value Of Background Eeg Frequencysupporting
confidence: 65%
“…For those 28 patients, 16 (57%) patients underwent EEG examination after 24 h following ROSC. These results are supported by a recent study from Duez et al [25]. They found no differences between prognostication at 24 h compared to 48 h, measured via the specificity and sensitivity of EEG categories, but when using EEG reactivity, prognostication was the best at 24 h compared to 48 h [25].…”
Section: The Prognostic Value Of Background Eeg Frequencysupporting
confidence: 65%
“…The accuracy of these patterns is reported in Table 45. The FPR of malignant patterns was generally higher and less consistent than that of highly malignant patterns, ranging from 0% [54,72] to 51.8% [57].…”
Section: Combinations Of Unfavourable Eeg Features (Tables 44 45)mentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The corresponding features included a discontinuous or unreactive background, a reversed antero-posterior gradient, alpha coma, periodic or rhythmic patterns, or discharges not associated with suppressed background, and seizures. However, some studies included features described as highly malignant in other studies, such as suppression [61,101], low voltage [52,57,72,90], and burst suppression [57,61,101]. The accuracy of these patterns is reported in Table 45.…”
Section: Combinations Of Unfavourable Eeg Features (Tables 44 45)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A patient not fulfilling the Step-2-criteria should be re-examined after ≥ 24 h. If GCS-M is still ≤ 2, Step 3 of the algorithm states that outcome will be “likely poor” if there are ≥ 2 pathological findings of the following: “high” serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) according to locally established cut-off values, unreactive burst-suppression or unreactive status epilepticus on electroencephalography (EEG), generalized oedema on head computed tomography (CT) ≤ 24 h post-arrest or on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or early (≤ 48 h) status myoclonus. Since the publication of the ERC/ESICM guidelines, a standardized classification of post-arrest EEG patterns has been suggested [ 3 6 ] and two large studies on serum NSE levels have been published [ 7 , 8 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%