晚期听觉诱发电位在意识障碍患者多模态预测中的附加价值。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-10 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006766
Julie Lévi-Strauss, Sarah Benghanem, Bertrand Hermann, Eléonore Bouchereau, Camille Legouy, Tarek Sharshar, Martine Gavaret, Estelle Pruvost-Robieux
{"title":"晚期听觉诱发电位在意识障碍患者多模态预测中的附加价值。","authors":"Julie Lévi-Strauss, Sarah Benghanem, Bertrand Hermann, Eléonore Bouchereau, Camille Legouy, Tarek Sharshar, Martine Gavaret, Estelle Pruvost-Robieux","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the added prognostic value of late auditory evoked potentials (AEPs): mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3, alongside other prognostic markers (electroencephalogram, somatosensory evoked potentials, absent pupillary reflex), in the prognostication of patients with disorders of consciousness. We stratified our analysis based on the type of brain injury: hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI) vs. non-HIBI.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>We performed a single-center retrospective study comparing the prognostic values of late AEPs and other neurophysiologic markers in predicting unfavorable outcomes, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended of 1-2 at 3 months, in both HIBI and non-HIBI groups. We compared the prognostic performance of a model including late AEPs to a model including only well-established markers.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>We included 148 patients from one institution at the subacute phase after coma onset (median, 20.0 d). The main cause of disorder of consciousness was HIBI in 43.9% of cases, followed by stroke in 31.8%.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The absence of P3 and MMN responses had a positive predictive value (PPV) for unfavorable outcome of 92.9% and 88.4% in HIBI, and 67.9% and 57.4% in non-HIBI, respectively. Predictive values of neurophysiologic markers were generally lower in non-HIBI compared with HIBI patients. Specifically, the PPV for unfavorable outcome of electroencephalogram malignant patterns and absent reactivity was significantly higher in HIBI compared with non-HIBI patients (76.9% vs. 31.3%, and 88.9% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.04, respectively). A model including AEPs significantly reduced the differences between individual predicted probabilities and actual outcome, both in the HIBI and non-HIBI contexts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrating late AEPs into multimodal assessments enhances the model's predictive performance. Their contribution to neuroprognostication may be particularly relevant in the non-HIBI context, where the predictive values of neurophysiologic tools are lower than in the HIBI context. Late AEPs are interesting and cost-effective tools for neuroprognostication in both HIBI and non-HIBI contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e1736-e1747"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Added Value of Late Auditory Evoked Potentials in the Multimodal Prognostication of Patients With Disorders of Consciousness.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Lévi-Strauss, Sarah Benghanem, Bertrand Hermann, Eléonore Bouchereau, Camille Legouy, Tarek Sharshar, Martine Gavaret, Estelle Pruvost-Robieux\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006766\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the added prognostic value of late auditory evoked potentials (AEPs): mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3, alongside other prognostic markers (electroencephalogram, somatosensory evoked potentials, absent pupillary reflex), in the prognostication of patients with disorders of consciousness. We stratified our analysis based on the type of brain injury: hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI) vs. non-HIBI.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>We performed a single-center retrospective study comparing the prognostic values of late AEPs and other neurophysiologic markers in predicting unfavorable outcomes, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended of 1-2 at 3 months, in both HIBI and non-HIBI groups. We compared the prognostic performance of a model including late AEPs to a model including only well-established markers.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>We included 148 patients from one institution at the subacute phase after coma onset (median, 20.0 d). The main cause of disorder of consciousness was HIBI in 43.9% of cases, followed by stroke in 31.8%.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The absence of P3 and MMN responses had a positive predictive value (PPV) for unfavorable outcome of 92.9% and 88.4% in HIBI, and 67.9% and 57.4% in non-HIBI, respectively. Predictive values of neurophysiologic markers were generally lower in non-HIBI compared with HIBI patients. Specifically, the PPV for unfavorable outcome of electroencephalogram malignant patterns and absent reactivity was significantly higher in HIBI compared with non-HIBI patients (76.9% vs. 31.3%, and 88.9% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.04, respectively). A model including AEPs significantly reduced the differences between individual predicted probabilities and actual outcome, both in the HIBI and non-HIBI contexts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrating late AEPs into multimodal assessments enhances the model's predictive performance. Their contribution to neuroprognostication may be particularly relevant in the non-HIBI context, where the predictive values of neurophysiologic tools are lower than in the HIBI context. Late AEPs are interesting and cost-effective tools for neuroprognostication in both HIBI and non-HIBI contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e1736-e1747\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006766\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006766","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估晚期听觉诱发电位(AEPs):失配阴性(MMN)和P3,以及其他预后标志物(脑电图、体感诱发电位、瞳孔反射缺失)在预测意识障碍患者预后中的附加价值。我们根据脑损伤的类型对我们的分析进行了分层:缺氧缺血性脑损伤(HIBI)与非HIBI。设计和设置:我们进行了一项单中心回顾性研究,比较HIBI组和非HIBI组中晚期aep和其他神经生理标志物在预测不良结局方面的预后价值,这些不良结局被定义为格拉斯哥结局量表(3个月时扩展为1-2)。我们比较了包括晚期aep的模型和仅包括成熟标志物的模型的预后表现。患者:我们纳入了来自一家机构的148例昏迷发作后亚急性期患者(中位数,20.0 d)。意识障碍的主要原因是HIBI(43.9%),其次是脑卒中(31.8%)。干预措施:没有。测量结果和主要结果:P3和MMN反应缺失对HIBI患者不良预后的阳性预测值(PPV)分别为92.9%和88.4%,非HIBI患者为67.9%和57.4%。与HIBI患者相比,非HIBI患者的神经生理指标的预测值普遍较低。具体而言,HIBI患者脑电图恶性模式和无反应性不良结果的PPV明显高于非HIBI患者(76.9% vs. 31.3%, 88.9% vs. 33.3%;P = 0.04)。在HIBI和非HIBI环境下,包括AEPs的模型显著降低了个体预测概率和实际结果之间的差异。结论:将晚期aep纳入多模态评估可提高模型的预测性能。它们对神经预后的贡献可能在非HIBI背景下特别相关,在非HIBI背景下,神经生理学工具的预测值低于HIBI背景。对于HIBI和非HIBI患者来说,晚期aep是一种有趣且经济有效的神经预后工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Added Value of Late Auditory Evoked Potentials in the Multimodal Prognostication of Patients With Disorders of Consciousness.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the added prognostic value of late auditory evoked potentials (AEPs): mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3, alongside other prognostic markers (electroencephalogram, somatosensory evoked potentials, absent pupillary reflex), in the prognostication of patients with disorders of consciousness. We stratified our analysis based on the type of brain injury: hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI) vs. non-HIBI.

Design and setting: We performed a single-center retrospective study comparing the prognostic values of late AEPs and other neurophysiologic markers in predicting unfavorable outcomes, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended of 1-2 at 3 months, in both HIBI and non-HIBI groups. We compared the prognostic performance of a model including late AEPs to a model including only well-established markers.

Patients: We included 148 patients from one institution at the subacute phase after coma onset (median, 20.0 d). The main cause of disorder of consciousness was HIBI in 43.9% of cases, followed by stroke in 31.8%.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: The absence of P3 and MMN responses had a positive predictive value (PPV) for unfavorable outcome of 92.9% and 88.4% in HIBI, and 67.9% and 57.4% in non-HIBI, respectively. Predictive values of neurophysiologic markers were generally lower in non-HIBI compared with HIBI patients. Specifically, the PPV for unfavorable outcome of electroencephalogram malignant patterns and absent reactivity was significantly higher in HIBI compared with non-HIBI patients (76.9% vs. 31.3%, and 88.9% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.04, respectively). A model including AEPs significantly reduced the differences between individual predicted probabilities and actual outcome, both in the HIBI and non-HIBI contexts.

Conclusions: Integrating late AEPs into multimodal assessments enhances the model's predictive performance. Their contribution to neuroprognostication may be particularly relevant in the non-HIBI context, where the predictive values of neurophysiologic tools are lower than in the HIBI context. Late AEPs are interesting and cost-effective tools for neuroprognostication in both HIBI and non-HIBI contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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