Biomarkers for neuroprognostication after standard versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F24%3A10482960" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/24:10482960 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11110/24:10482960

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=vIac2Zu.OF" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=vIac2Zu.OF</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110219" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110219</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Biomarkers for neuroprognostication after standard versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Background: Limited evidence exists for prognostic performance of biomarkers in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with extracorporeal CPR (ECPR). We hypothesized that (1) the time course and (2) prognostic performance of biomarkers might differ between CPR and ECPR in a sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study. Methods: Patients received either CPR (n = 164) or ECPR (n = 92). The primary outcome was favorable neurologic survival at 180 days [cerebral performance category (CPC) 1-2]. Secondary outcomes included biomarkers of neurologic injury, inflammation and hemocoagulation. Results: Favorable neurologic outcome was not different between groups: CPR 29.3% vs. ECPR 21.7%; p = 0.191. Biomarkers exhibited similar trajectories in both groups, with better values in patients with CPC 1-2. Procalcitonin (PCT) was higher in ECPR group at 24-72 h (all p &lt; 0.01). Neuron-specific enolase (NSE), C-reactive protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio did not differ between groups. Platelets, D-dimers and fibrinogen were lower in ECPR vs. CPR groups at 24-72 h (all p &lt; 0.001). ROC analysis (24-48-72 h) showed the best performance of NSE in both CPR and ECPR groups (AUC 0.89 vs. 0.78; 0.9 vs. 0.9; 0.91 vs. 0.9). PCT showed good performance specifically in ECPR (0.72 vs. 0.84; 0.73 vs. 0.87; 0.73 vs. 0.86). Optimal cutoff points of NSE and PCT were higher in ECPR vs. CPR. Conclusions: Biomarkers exhibited similar trajectories although absolute values tended to be higher in ECPR. NSE had superior performance in both groups. PCT showed a good performance specifically in ECPR. Additional biomarkers may have modest incremental value. Prognostication algorithms should reflect the resuscitation method.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Biomarkers for neuroprognostication after standard versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study

Popis výsledku anglicky

Background: Limited evidence exists for prognostic performance of biomarkers in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with extracorporeal CPR (ECPR). We hypothesized that (1) the time course and (2) prognostic performance of biomarkers might differ between CPR and ECPR in a sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study. Methods: Patients received either CPR (n = 164) or ECPR (n = 92). The primary outcome was favorable neurologic survival at 180 days [cerebral performance category (CPC) 1-2]. Secondary outcomes included biomarkers of neurologic injury, inflammation and hemocoagulation. Results: Favorable neurologic outcome was not different between groups: CPR 29.3% vs. ECPR 21.7%; p = 0.191. Biomarkers exhibited similar trajectories in both groups, with better values in patients with CPC 1-2. Procalcitonin (PCT) was higher in ECPR group at 24-72 h (all p &lt; 0.01). Neuron-specific enolase (NSE), C-reactive protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio did not differ between groups. Platelets, D-dimers and fibrinogen were lower in ECPR vs. CPR groups at 24-72 h (all p &lt; 0.001). ROC analysis (24-48-72 h) showed the best performance of NSE in both CPR and ECPR groups (AUC 0.89 vs. 0.78; 0.9 vs. 0.9; 0.91 vs. 0.9). PCT showed good performance specifically in ECPR (0.72 vs. 0.84; 0.73 vs. 0.87; 0.73 vs. 0.86). Optimal cutoff points of NSE and PCT were higher in ECPR vs. CPR. Conclusions: Biomarkers exhibited similar trajectories although absolute values tended to be higher in ECPR. NSE had superior performance in both groups. PCT showed a good performance specifically in ECPR. Additional biomarkers may have modest incremental value. Prognostication algorithms should reflect the resuscitation method.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/NT13225" target="_blank" >NT13225: Hyperinvazívní přístup k mimonemocniční zástavě srdce s použitím mechanizované masáže, přednemocničního chlazení, mimotělní podpory oběhu a časného invazívního vyšetření ve srovnání se standardní péčí. Randomizovaná srovnávací studie. "Prague OHCA study"</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Resuscitation

ISSN

0300-9572

e-ISSN

1873-1570

Svazek periodika

199

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

June

Stát vydavatele periodika

IE - Irsko

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

110219

Kód UT WoS článku

001235952800001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85191343408