Martijn Beudel, Marleen C. Tjepkema-Cloostermans, Jochem H. Boersma, Michel J. A. M. van Putten
Abstract
Post-anoxic encephalopathy (PAE) has a heterogenous outcome which is difficult to predict. At present, it is possible to predict poor outcome using somatosensory evoked potentials in only a minority of the patients at an early stage. In addition, it remains difficult to predict good outcome at an early stage. Network architecture, as can be quantified with continuous electroencephalography (cEEG), may serve as a candidate measure for predicting neurological outcome. Here, we explore whether cEEG monitoring can be used to detect the integrity of neural network architecture in patients with PAE after cardiac arrest. From 56 patients with PAE treated with mild therapeutic hypothermia, 19-channel cEEG data were recorded starting as soon as possible after cardiac arrest. Adjacency matrices of shared frequencies between 1 and 25 Hz of the EEG channels were obtained using Fourier transformations. Number of network nodes and connections, clustering coefficient (C), average path length (L), and small-world index (SWI) were derived. Outcome was quantified by the best cerebral performance category (CPC)-score within 6 months. Compared to non-survivors, survivors showed significantly more nodes and connections. L was significantly higher and C and SWI were significantly lower in the survivor group than in the non-survivor group. The number of nodes, connections, and the L were negatively correlated with the CPC-score. C and SWI correlated positively with the CPC-score. The combination of number of nodes, connections, C, and L showed the most significant difference and correlation between survivors and non-survivors and CPC-score. Our data might implicate that non-survivors have insufficient distribution and differentiation of neural activity for regaining normal brain function. These network differences, already present during hypothermia, might be further developed as early prognostic markers. The predictive values are however still inferior to current practice parameters.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 June 2014.
All research outputs
#20,231,392
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,668
of 11,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,807
of 206,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#43
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 206,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
