• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

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

H. Brodska, J. Smalcova, P. Kavalkova, DR. Lavage, M. Dusik, J. Belohlavek, T. Drabek

. 2024 ; 199 (-) : 110219. [pub] 20240420

Jazyk angličtina Země Irsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24013677

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 < 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 < 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.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24013677
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240905133543.0
007      
ta
008      
240725e20240420ie f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110219 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38649087
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ie
100    1_
$a Brodska, Helena $u Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 499/2, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Biomarkers for neuroprognostication after standard versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study / $c H. Brodska, J. Smalcova, P. Kavalkova, DR. Lavage, M. Dusik, J. Belohlavek, T. Drabek
520    9_
$a 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 < 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 < 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.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    12
$a zástava srdce mimo nemocnici $x terapie $x krev $x mortalita $7 D058687
650    12
$a biologické markery $x krev $7 D015415
650    12
$a kardiopulmonální resuscitace $x metody $7 D016887
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    12
$a mimotělní membránová oxygenace $x metody $7 D015199
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a prokalcitonin $x krev $7 D000077740
650    _2
$a fosfopyruváthydratasa $x krev $7 D010751
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Smalcova, Jana $u First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Katerinska 32, Prague, Czech Republic; Emergency Medical Service in Prague, Korunni 98, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kavalkova, Petra $u 2nd Department of Medicine - Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 499/2, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Lavage, Danielle R $u Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and UPMC, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh PA 15213, United States
700    1_
$a Dusik, Milan $u 2nd Department of Medicine - Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 499/2, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Belohlavek, Jan $u 2nd Department of Medicine - Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 499/2, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Drabek, Tomas $u Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and UPMC, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh PA 15213, United States; Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, John G. Rangos Research Center, 4401 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, United States. Electronic address: drabekt@anes.upmc.edu
773    0_
$w MED00004106 $t Resuscitation $x 1873-1570 $g Roč. 199 (20240420), s. 110219
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38649087 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240725 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240905133537 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2143460 $s 1225543
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 199 $c - $d 110219 $e 20240420 $i 1873-1570 $m Resuscitation $n Resuscitation $x MED00004106
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240725

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...