↓ Skip to main content

Categorization of post-cardiac arrest patients according to the pattern of amplitude-integrated electroencephalography after return of spontaneous circulation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Categorization of post-cardiac arrest patients according to the pattern of amplitude-integrated electroencephalography after return of spontaneous circulation
Published in
Critical Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2138-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazuhiro Sugiyama, Kazuki Miyazaki, Takuto Ishida, Takahiro Tanabe, Yuichi Hamabe

Abstract

Continuous electroencephalography (cEEG), interpreted by an experienced neurologist, has been reported to be useful in predicting neurological outcome in adult patients post cardiac arrest. Amplitude-integrated electroencephalography (aEEG) is a type of quantitative EEG and is easily interpreted by a non-neurologist. A few studies have shown the effectiveness of aEEG in prognostication among adult patients post cardiac arrest. In this study, we hypothesized that the pattern of aEEG after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) could successfully categorize patients post cardiac arrest according to their expected neurological outcome. We assessed the comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who received targeted temperature management with midazolam-based sedation and were monitored with aEEG at our tertiary emergency care center from January 2013 to June 2017. We categorized the patients into categories 1 (C1) to 4 (C4). C1 included patients who regained continuous normal voltage (CNV) within 12 h post ROSC, C2 included those who recovered CNV 12-36 h post ROSC, C3 included those who did not recover CNV before 36 h post ROSC, and C4 included those who had burst suppression at any time post ROSC. We evaluated the outcomes of neurological function for each category at hospital discharge. A good outcome was defined as a cerebral performance category of 1 or 2. A total of 61 patients were assessed (median age, 60 years), among whom 42 (70%) had an initial shockable rhythm, and 52 (85%) had cardiac etiology. Of all 61 patients, 40 (66%) survived to hospital discharge and 27 (44%) had a good neurological outcome. Of 20 patients in C1, 19 (95%) had a good outcome, while the percentage dropped to 57% among C2 patients. No patients in C3 or C4 had a good outcome. Three patients could not be classified into any category. The pattern of aEEG during the early post-cardiac-arrest period can successfully categorize patients according to their neurological prognoses and could be used as a potential guide to customize post-cardiac-arrest care for each patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Engineering 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,109,534
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,872
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,111
of 351,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#56
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.