Explore the vast range of titles available.

Post-cardiac arrest brain injury (PCABI) is caused by initial ischaemia and subsequent reperfusion of the brain following resuscitation. In those who are admitted to intensive care unit after cardiac arrest, PCABI manifests as coma, and is the main cause of mortality and long-term disability. This review describes the mechanisms of PCABI, its treatment options, its outcomes, and the suggested strategies for outcome prediction.

Hypoxic–ischaemic brain injury (HIBI) is the main cause of death in patients who are comatose after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. A poor neurological outcome—defined as death from neurological cause, persistent vegetative state, or severe neurological disability—can be predicted in these patients by assessing the severity of HIBI. The most commonly used indicators of severe HIBI include bilateral absence of corneal and pupillary reflexes, bilateral absence of N 2 O waves of short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials, high blood concentrations of neuron specific enolase, unfavourable patterns on electroencephalogram, and signs of diffuse HIBI on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Current guidelines recommend performing prognostication no earlier than 72 h after return of spontaneous circulation in all comatose patients with an absent or extensor motor response to pain, after having excluded confounders such as residual sedation that may interfere with clinical examination. A multimodal approach combining multiple prognostication tests is recommended so that the risk of a falsely pessimistic prediction is minimised.

PurposeTo assess the ability of clinical examination, blood biomarkers, electrophysiology, or neuroimaging assessed within 7 days from return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to predict poor neurological outcome, defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability (CPC 3–5) at hospital discharge/1 month or later, in comatose adult survivors from cardiac arrest (CA).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2013–April 2020) were searched. Sensitivity and false-positive rate (FPR) for each predictor were calculated. Due to heterogeneities in recording times, predictor thresholds, and definition of some predictors, meta-analysis was not performed.ResultsNinety-four studies (30,200 patients) were included. Bilaterally absent pupillary or corneal reflexes after day 4 from ROSC, high blood values of neuron-specific enolase from 24 h after ROSC, absent N20 waves of short-latency somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) or unequivocal seizures on electroencephalogram (EEG) from the day of ROSC, EEG background suppression or burst-suppression from 24 h after ROSC, diffuse cerebral oedema on brain CT from 2 h after ROSC, or reduced diffusion on brain MRI at 2–5 days after ROSC had 0% FPR for poor outcome in most studies. Risk of bias assessed using the QUIPS tool was high for all predictors.ConclusionIn comatose resuscitated patients, clinical, biochemical, neurophysiological, and radiological tests have a potential to predict poor neurological outcome with no false-positive predictions within the first week after CA. Guidelines should consider the methodological concerns and limited sensitivity for individual modalities. (PROSPERO CRD42019141169)

PurposePost-resuscitation guidelines recommend a multimodal algorithm for outcome prediction after cardiac arrest (CA). We aimed at evaluating the prevalence of indeterminate prognosis after application of this algorithm and providing a strategy for improving prognostication in this population.MethodsWe examined a prospective cohort of comatose CA patients (n = 485) in whom the ERC/ESICM algorithm was applied. In patients with an indeterminate outcome, prognostication was investigated using standardized EEG classification (benign, malignant, highly malignant) and serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE). Neurological recovery at 3 months was dichotomized as good (Cerebral Performance Categories [CPC] 1–2) vs. poor (CPC 3–5).ResultsUsing the ERC/ESICM algorithm, 155 (32%) patients were prognosticated with poor outcome; all died at 3 months. Among the remaining 330 (68%) patients with an indeterminate outcome, the majority (212/330; 64%) showed good recovery. In this patient subgroup, absence of a highly malignant EEG by day 3 had 99.5 [97.4–99.9] % sensitivity for good recovery, which was superior to NSE < 33 μg/L (84.9 [79.3–89.4] % when used alone; 84.4 [78.8–89] % when combined with EEG, both p < 0.001). Highly malignant EEG had equal specificity (99.5 [97.4–99.9] %) but higher sensitivity than NSE for poor recovery. Further analysis of the discriminative power of outcome predictors revealed limited value of NSE over EEG.ConclusionsIn the majority of comatose CA patients, the outcome remains indeterminate after application of ERC/ESICM prognostication algorithm. Standardized EEG background analysis enables accurate prediction of both good and poor recovery, thereby greatly reducing uncertainty about coma prognostication in this patient population.

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) have collaborated to produce these post-resuscitation care guidelines for adults, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include the post-cardiac arrest syndrome, diagnosis of cause of cardiac arrest, control of oxygenation and ventilation, coronary reperfusion, haemodynamic monitoring and management, control of seizures, temperature control, general intensive care management, prognostication, long-term outcome, rehabilitation and organ donation.

Purpose Targeted temperature management (TTM) may improve survival and functional outcome in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), though the optimal target temperature remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of deep hypothermia (31–32 °C), moderate hypothermia (33–34 °C), mild hypothermia (35–36 °C), and normothermia (37–37.8 °C) during TTM. Methods We searched six databases from inception to June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating TTM in comatose OHCA survivors. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was survival with good functional outcome. We used GRADE to rate our certainty in estimates. Results We included 10 RCTs (4218 patients). Compared with normothermia, deep hypothermia (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–2.30), moderate hypothermia (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.92–1.94) and mild hypothermia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.74–2.80) may have no effect on survival with good functional outcome (all low certainty). Deep hypothermia may not improve survival with good functional outcome, as compared to moderate hypothermia (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.61–1.54, low certainty). Moderate hypothermia (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86–1.77) and deep hypothermia (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.70–2.32) may have no effect on survival, as compared to normothermia. Finally, incidence of arrhythmia was higher with moderate hypothermia (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08–1.94) and deep hypothermia (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.77–7.26), compared to normothermia (both high certainty). Conclusions Mild, moderate, or deep hypothermia may not improve survival or functional outcome after OHCA, as compared to normothermia. Moderate and deep hypothermia were associated with higher incidence of arrhythmia. Routine use of moderate or deep hypothermia in comatose survivors of OHCA may potentially be associated with more harm than benefit.

Most of the patients who die after cardiac arrest do so because of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI). Experimental evidence shows that temperature control targeted at hypothermia mitigates HIBI. In 2002, one randomized trial and one quasi-randomized trial showed that temperature control targeted at 32–34 °C improved neurological outcome and mortality in patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest. However, following the publication of these trials, other studies have questioned the neuroprotective effects of hypothermia. In 2021, the largest study conducted so far on temperature control (the TTM-2 trial) including 1900 adults comatose after resuscitation showed no effect of temperature control targeted at 33 °C compared with normothermia or fever control. A systematic review of 32 trials published between 2001 and 2021 concluded that temperature control with a target of 32–34 °C compared with fever prevention did not result in an improvement in survival (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89–1.30) or favorable functional outcome (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.91–1.61) at 90–180 days after resuscitation. There was substantial heterogeneity across the trials, and the certainty of the evidence was low. Based on these results, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation currently recommends monitoring core temperature and actively preventing fever (37.7 °C) for at least 72 h in patients who are comatose after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Future studies are needed to identify potential patient subgroups who may benefit from temperature control aimed at hypothermia. There are no trials comparing normothermia or fever control with no temperature control after cardiac arrest.

About two-thirds of patients who are comatose after resuscitation from cardiac arrest die before hospital discharge, of whom two-thirds die from neurological injury [1]. In these patients, prognostication is crucial in informing clinicians and patient’s relatives so that appropriate care can be provided.

The aim of these guidelines is to provide evidence‑based guidance for temperature control in adults who are comatose after resuscitation from either in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, regardless of the underlying cardiac rhythm. These guidelines replace the recommendations on temperature management after cardiac arrest included in the 2021 post-resuscitation care guidelines co-issued by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The guideline panel included thirteen international clinical experts who authored the 2021 ERC-ESICM guidelines and two methodologists who participated in the evidence review completed on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) of whom ERC is a member society. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations. The panel provided suggestions on guideline implementation and identified priorities for future research. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to low. In patients who remain comatose after cardiac arrest, we recommend continuous monitoring of core temperature and actively preventing fever (defined as a temperature > 37.7 °C) for at least 72 h. There was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against temperature control at 32–36 °C or early cooling after cardiac arrest. We recommend not actively rewarming comatose patients with mild hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to achieve normothermia. We recommend not using prehospital cooling with rapid infusion of large volumes of cold intravenous fluids immediately after ROSC.

PurposeTo assess the ability of quantitative pupillometry [using the Neurological Pupil index (NPi)] to predict an unfavorable neurological outcome after cardiac arrest (CA).MethodsWe performed a prospective international multicenter study (10 centers) in adult comatose CA patients. Quantitative NPi and standard manual pupillary light reflex (sPLR)—blinded to clinicians and outcome assessors—were recorded in parallel from day 1 to 3 after CA. Primary study endpoint was to compare the value of NPi versus sPLR to predict 3-month Cerebral Performance Category (CPC), dichotomized as favorable (CPC 1–2: full recovery or moderate disability) versus unfavorable outcome (CPC 3–5: severe disability, vegetative state, or death).ResultsAt any time between day 1 and 3, an NPi ≤ 2 (n = 456 patients) had a 51% (95% CI 49–53) negative predictive value and a 100% positive predictive value [PPV; 0% (0–2) false-positive rate], with a 100% (98–100) specificity and 32% (27–38) sensitivity for the prediction of unfavorable outcome. Compared with NPi, sPLR had significantly lower PPV and significantly lower specificity (p  < 0.001 at day 1 and 2; p  = 0.06 at day 3). The combination of NPi ≤ 2 with bilaterally absent somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP; n = 188 patients) provided higher sensitivity [58% (49–67) vs. 48% (39–57) for SSEP alone], with comparable specificity [100% (94–100)].ConclusionsQuantitative NPi had excellent ability to predict an unfavorable outcome from day 1 after CA, with no false positives, and significantly higher specificity than standard manual pupillary examination. The addition of NPi to SSEP increased sensitivity of outcome prediction, while maintaining 100% specificity.