Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Biomarkers for neuroprognostication after standard versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation – A sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study
An erratum to this article was published (Resuscitation, Aug 2024 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)
- Participants
- 92 vs 164
- Comparison
- Extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) vs standard CPR
- ECPRn = 92
- CPRn = 164reference
- Primary endpoint
- Favourable neurologic survival (CPC 1-2)
- Follow-up
- 180 days
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Favourable neurologic outcome (CPC 1-2)
P = 0.191
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | CPR | ECPR |
|---|---|---|
| Prognostic performance of NSE (ROC) · 24-48-72 hBest performance in both groups | ||
| AUC 24 h | 0.89 | 0.78 |
| AUC 48 h | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| AUC 72 h | 0.91 | 0.9 |
| Prognostic performance of PCT (ROC) · 24-48-72 h | ||
| AUC 24 h | 0.72 | 0.84 |
| AUC 48 h | 0.73 | 0.87 |
| AUC 72 h | 0.73 | 0.86 |
Biomarker trajectories
- Similar trajectories in both groups, better values with cerebral performance category (CPC) 1-2
- Neuron-specific enolase (NSE), C-reactive protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio did not differ between groups
Procalcitonin (PCT), ECPR vs CPR · 24-72 h
- Higher in ECPR
- all p < 0.01
Platelets, D-dimers and fibrinogen, ECPR vs CPR · 24-72 h
- Lower in ECPR
- all p < 0.001
Prognostic performance of PCT (ROC) · 24-48-72 h
- Optimal cutoff points of NSE and PCT higher in ECPR vs CPR
Original publication
Biomarkers for neuroprognostication after standard versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation – A sub-analysis of Prague-OHCA study. Resuscitation. Published 20 April 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →