-
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
Jazyk angličtina Země Irsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
- MeSH
- biologické markery * krev MeSH
- fosfopyruváthydratasa krev MeSH
- kardiopulmonální resuscitace * metody MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mimotělní membránová oxygenace * metody MeSH
- prognóza MeSH
- prokalcitonin krev MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- zástava srdce mimo nemocnici * terapie krev mortalita MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
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