Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Resuscitation. 2017 Oct;119:70-75. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.06.022. Epub 2017 Jun 23.

Can somatosensory and visual evoked potentials predict neurological outcome during targeted temperature management in post cardiac arrest patients?

Author information

1
Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2
Department of Neurology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
3
Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: emsky@catholic.ac.kr.

Abstract

PURPOSES:

In cardiac arrest patients treated with targeted temperature management (TTM), it is not certain if somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can predict neurological outcomes during TTM. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of SEPs and VEPs during TTM and after rewarming.

METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study included comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest and treated with TTM between March 2007 and July 2015. SEPs and VEPs were recorded during TTM and after rewarming in these patients. Neurological outcome was assessed at discharge by the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) Scale.

RESULTS:

In total, 115 patients were included. A total of 175 SEPs and 150 VEPs were performed. Five SEPs during treated with TTM and nine SEPs after rewarming were excluded from outcome prediction by SEPs due to an indeterminable N20 response because of technical error. Using 80 SEPs and 85 VEPs during treated with TTM, absent SEPs yielded a sensitivity of 58% and a specificity of 100% for poor outcome (CPC 3-5), and absent VEPs predicted poor neurological outcome with a sensitivity of 44% and a specificity of 96%. The AUC of combination of SEPs and VEPs was superior to either test alone (0.788 for absent SEPs and 0.713 for absent VEPs compared with 0.838 for the combination). After rewarming, absent SEPs and absent VEPs predicted poor neurological outcome with a specificity of 100%. When SEPs and VEPs were combined, VEPs slightly increased the prognostic accuracy of SEPs alone. Although one patient with absent VEP during treated with TTM had a good neurological outcome, none of the patients with good neurological outcome had an absent VEP after rewarming.

CONCLUSION:

Absent SEPs could predict poor neurological outcome during TTM as well as after rewarming. Absent VEPs may predict poor neurological outcome in both periods and VEPs may provide additional prognostic value in outcome prediction.

KEYWORDS:

Cardiac arrest; Somatosensory evoked potentials; Targeted temperature management; Visual evoked potentials

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center