Fiche du document
2014
- doi: 10.1007/s12028-014-9981-z
- issn: 1541-6933
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s12028-014-9981-z
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/24760270
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1556-0961
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_7C009F9803817
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
Impoverished people Disadvantaged, Economically Low-income people Poor people Pauperism Poor--Economic conditions Poor, The Economically disadvantaged Encephalography EEG Comatose stateCiter ce document
T. Suys et al., « Automated quantitative pupillometry for the prognostication of coma after cardiac arrest. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1007/s12028-014-9981-z
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Sedation and therapeutic hypothermia (TH) delay neurological responses and might reduce the accuracy of clinical examination to predict outcome after cardiac arrest (CA). We examined the accuracy of quantitative pupillary light reactivity (PLR), using an automated infrared pupillometry, to predict outcome of post-CA coma in comparison to standard PLR, EEG, and somato-sensory evoked potentials (SSEP). METHODS: We prospectively studied over a 1-year period (June 2012-June 2013) 50 consecutive comatose CA patients treated with TH (33 °C, 24 h). Quantitative PLR (expressed as the % of pupillary response to a calibrated light stimulus) and standard PLR were measured at day 1 (TH and sedation; on average 16 h after CA) and day 2 (normothermia, off sedation: on average 46 h after CA). Neurological outcome was assessed at 90 days with Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC), dichotomized as good (CPC 1-2) versus poor (CPC 3-5). Predictive performance was analyzed using area under the ROC curves (AUC). RESULTS: Patients with good outcome [n = 23 (46 %)] had higher quantitative PLR than those with poor outcome [n = 27; 16 (range 9-23) vs. 10 (1-30) % at day 1, and 20 (13-39) vs. 11 (1-55) % at day 2, both p