We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double-blinded study.
Intensive Care Medicine 2018 December
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of quantitative pupillometry [using the Neurological Pupil index (NPi)] to predict an unfavorable neurological outcome after cardiac arrest (CA).
METHODS: We 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).
RESULTS: At 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)].
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative 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.
METHODS: We 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).
RESULTS: At 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)].
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative 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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app