Hemolysis correction factor in the reporting of serum neuron-specific enolase – Clinical utility in neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest

IF 3.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Resuscitation plus Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-24 DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101208
Christina Jungar , Erik Alinder , Charlotte Becker , Marion Moseby-Knappe , Anna Lybeck
{"title":"Hemolysis correction factor in the reporting of serum neuron-specific enolase – Clinical utility in neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest","authors":"Christina Jungar ,&nbsp;Erik Alinder ,&nbsp;Charlotte Becker ,&nbsp;Marion Moseby-Knappe ,&nbsp;Anna Lybeck","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) from 48 h after cardiac arrest is the only biomarker of brain injury with recommended cut-offs for use in neuroprognostication. Hemolysis elevates levels of NSE and may result in false outcome predictions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A correction-factor for hemolysis in reporting of levels of NSE was established and evaluated in (1) incoming routine samples and (2) biobank samples from 48 h after cardiac arrest from the SweCrit biobank. Comparisons were made with three methods for handling hemolysis: Hemolysis Index (HI) 30 mg/dL or HI 50 mg/dL as the highest acceptable level of hemolysis, or a graded approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five-hundred and fifty-six routine samples and 263 biobank samples were analyzed. A correction factor of 0.33 µg/L per HI significantly increased the number of reported routine samples, when compared to the three other methods for handling hemolysis (HI 30 mg/dL or HI 50 mg/dL as the highest acceptable level of hemolysis, or a graded approach). Use of the correction factor did not affect the number of reported biobank samples. The prognostic accuracy of NSE was unaffected by use of the correction factor compared to the other tested methods for handling hemolysis: area under the curve (AUC) 0.88 (95 % Cl 0.84–0.92) vs 0.87 (95 % Cl 0.83–0.92) at HI ≤ 30 mg/dL, 0.87 (95 % Cl 0.83–0.92) at HI ≤ 50 mg/dL and 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83–0.92) with the graded approach. Levels of hemolysis were low in the biobank samples.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Due to the low levels of hemolysis in the biobank samples, the effects of a correction factor on neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest in routine samples remains uncertain. Clinical use of a correction factor may lead to more reported samples but risks over-correction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"28 ","pages":"Article 101208"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425003455","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) from 48 h after cardiac arrest is the only biomarker of brain injury with recommended cut-offs for use in neuroprognostication. Hemolysis elevates levels of NSE and may result in false outcome predictions.

Methods

A correction-factor for hemolysis in reporting of levels of NSE was established and evaluated in (1) incoming routine samples and (2) biobank samples from 48 h after cardiac arrest from the SweCrit biobank. Comparisons were made with three methods for handling hemolysis: Hemolysis Index (HI) 30 mg/dL or HI 50 mg/dL as the highest acceptable level of hemolysis, or a graded approach.

Results

Five-hundred and fifty-six routine samples and 263 biobank samples were analyzed. A correction factor of 0.33 µg/L per HI significantly increased the number of reported routine samples, when compared to the three other methods for handling hemolysis (HI 30 mg/dL or HI 50 mg/dL as the highest acceptable level of hemolysis, or a graded approach). Use of the correction factor did not affect the number of reported biobank samples. The prognostic accuracy of NSE was unaffected by use of the correction factor compared to the other tested methods for handling hemolysis: area under the curve (AUC) 0.88 (95 % Cl 0.84–0.92) vs 0.87 (95 % Cl 0.83–0.92) at HI ≤ 30 mg/dL, 0.87 (95 % Cl 0.83–0.92) at HI ≤ 50 mg/dL and 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83–0.92) with the graded approach. Levels of hemolysis were low in the biobank samples.

Conclusion

Due to the low levels of hemolysis in the biobank samples, the effects of a correction factor on neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest in routine samples remains uncertain. Clinical use of a correction factor may lead to more reported samples but risks over-correction.
血清神经元特异性烯醇化酶报告中的溶血校正因子——心脏骤停后神经预后的临床应用
背景:心脏骤停后48小时的神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)是脑损伤的唯一生物标志物,被推荐用于神经预后。溶血可提高NSE水平,并可能导致错误的预后预测。方法建立溶血报告NSE水平的校正因子,并对(1)输入的常规样本和(2)SweCrit生物库中心脏骤停后48 h的生物库样本进行评估。比较了三种处理溶血的方法:溶血指数(HI) 30 mg/dL或HI 50 mg/dL作为溶血的最高可接受水平,或分级方法。结果共检测常规标本556份,生物库标本263份。与其他三种处理溶血的方法(30mg /dL或50mg /dL作为溶血的最高可接受水平,或分级方法)相比,每个HI的校正因子0.33 μ g/L显著增加了报告的常规样品数量。校正因子的使用不影响报告的生物样本数量。与处理溶血的其他测试方法相比,NSE的预后准确性不受使用校正因子的影响:曲线下面积(AUC)为0.88 (95% Cl 0.84-0.92), HI≤30 mg/dL时为0.87 (95% Cl 0.83-0.92), HI≤50 mg/dL时为0.87 (95% Cl 0.83-0.92),分级方法为0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.92)。生物样本的溶血水平较低。结论由于生物样本中溶血水平较低,校正因子对常规样本心脏骤停后神经预后的影响尚不确定。临床使用校正因子可能导致更多的报告样本,但存在过度校正的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书