Dong Xin, Shao Huanzhang, Yang Yanan, Qin Lijie, Guo Zhisong, Zhang Huifeng, Zhang Xueyan, Qin Bingyu
Department of Critical Care Medicine, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, Henan, China. Corresponding author: Qin Bingyu, Email:
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2017 Oct;29(10):887-892. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.10.005.
To explore the characteristic of early evaluation of patients with amplitude-integrated electroencephalogram (aEEG) on brain function prognosis after cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation (CPCR).
A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients with adult CPCR in intensive care unit (ICU) of Henan Provincial People's Hospital from March 2016 to March 2017 was performed. The length of stay, recovery time, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, aEEG and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) within 72 hours were recorded. The main clinical outcome was the prognosis of brain function (Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category, CPC) in patients with CPCR after 3 months. Relationship between aEEG and GCS and their correlation with brain function prognosis was analyzed by Spearman rank correlation analysis. The effects of aEEG and GCS on prognosis of brain function were evaluated by Logistic regression analysis. The predictive ability of aEEG and GCS for brain function prognosis was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
A total of 31 patients with CPCR were enrolled, with 18 males and 13 females; mean age was (41.84±16.96) years old; recovery time average was (19.42±10.79) minutes; the length of stay was (14.84±10.86) days; APACHE II score 19.29±6.42; aEEG grade I (normal amplitude) in 7 cases, grade II (mild to moderate abnormal amplitude) in 13 cases, grade III (severe abnormal amplitude) in 11 cases; GCS grade I (9-14 scores) in 7 cases, grade II (4-8 scores) in 14 cases, grade III (3 scores) in 10 cases; 19 survivals, 12 deaths; the prognosis of brain function was good (CPC 1-2) in 8 cases, and the prognosis of brain function was poor (CPC 3-5) in 23 cases. There was no significant difference in age, gender, recovery time, length of stay and APACHE II score between two groups with different brain function prognosis, while aEEG grade and GCS grade were significantly different. Cochran-Armitage trend test showed that the higher the grade of aEEG and GCS, the worse the prognosis of CPCR patients (both P-trend < 0.01). With the increase in GCS classification, the classification of aEEG was also increasing (r = 0.620 6, P = 0.000 3). Both aEEG and GCS were positively correlated with the prognosis of brain function (r = 0.779 6, P < 0.000 1; r = 0.702 1, P < 0.000 1). Univariate Logistic regression analysis showed that aEEG and GCS had significant effect on early brain function prognosis [aEEG: odds ratio (OR) = 37.234, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 3.168-437.652, P = 0.004, GCS: OR = 12.333, 95%CI = 1.992-76.352, P = 0.007]; after adjusting for aEEG and GCS, only aEEG had significant effect on the early prognosis of brain function (OR = 26.932, 95%CI = 1.729-419.471, P = 0.019). The ROC curve analysis showed that in the evaluation of the prognosis of CPCR patients with brain function, the area under ROC curve (AUC) of aEEG was 0.913, when the cut-off value of aEEG was 1.5, the sensitivity was 95.7% and the specificity was 75.0%. The AUC of GCS was 0.851, the best cut-off value was 1.5, the sensitivity was 91.3% and the specificity was 62.5%.
aEEG and GCS scores have a good correlation in the evaluation of brain function prognosis in patients with CPCR, the accuracy of aEEG in the early evaluation of the prognosis of patients with CPCR is higher than the GCS score.
探讨振幅整合脑电图(aEEG)对心肺脑复苏(CPCR)后患者脑功能预后的早期评估特点。
回顾性分析2016年3月至2017年3月河南省人民医院重症监护病房(ICU)收治的成年CPCR患者的临床资料。记录患者72小时内的住院时间、恢复时间、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)评分、aEEG及格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分。主要临床结局为CPCR患者3个月后脑功能预后(格拉斯哥-匹兹堡脑功能分级,CPC)。采用Spearman等级相关分析aEEG与GCS之间的关系及其与脑功能预后的相关性。采用Logistic回归分析评估aEEG和GCS对脑功能预后的影响。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线评估aEEG和GCS对脑功能预后的预测能力。
共纳入31例CPCR患者,其中男性18例,女性13例;平均年龄(41.84±16.96)岁;恢复时间平均为(19.42±10.79)分钟;住院时间为(14.84±10.86)天;APACHE II评分为19.29±6.42;aEEG I级(正常振幅)7例,II级(轻度至中度异常振幅)13例,III级(重度异常振幅)11例;GCS I级(9 - 14分)7例,II级(4 - 8分)14例,III级(3分)10例;存活19例,死亡12例;脑功能预后良好(CPC 1 - 2)8例,脑功能预后不良(CPC 3 - 5)23例。不同脑功能预后的两组患者在年龄、性别、恢复时间、住院时间及APACHE II评分方面差异无统计学意义,而aEEG分级和GCS分级差异有统计学意义。Cochran - Armitage趋势检验显示,aEEG和GCS分级越高,CPCR患者预后越差(P趋势均<0.01)。随着GCS分级增加,aEEG分级也增加(r = 0.620 6,P = 0.000 3)。aEEG和GCS均与脑功能预后呈正相关(r = 0.779 6,P < 0.000 1;r = 0.702 1,P < 0.000 1)。单因素Logistic回归分析显示,aEEG和GCS对早期脑功能预后有显著影响[aEEG:比值比(OR)= 37.234,95%置信区间(95%CI)= 3.168 - 437.652,P = 0.004,GCS:OR = 12.333,95%CI = 1.992 - 76.352,P = 0.007];在调整aEEG和GCS后,仅aEEG对早期脑功能预后有显著影响(OR = 26.932,95%CI = 1.729 - 419.471,P = 0.019)。ROC曲线分析显示,在评估CPCR患者脑功能预后时,aEEG的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.913,当aEEG截断值为1.5时,灵敏度为95.7%,特异度为75.0%。GCS的AUC为0.851,最佳截断值为1.5,灵敏度为91.3%,特异度为62.5%。
aEEG与GCS评分在评估CPCR患者脑功能预后方面具有良好的相关性,aEEG对CPCR患者预后早期评估的准确性高于GCS评分。