This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objectives To determine thresholds of serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) for prediction of poor outcome after cardiac arrest with >95% specificity using a unique method of multiple thresholds meta-analysis.
Methods Data from a systematic review by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC 2014) were updated with literature searches from PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus until August 2020. Search terms included the MeSH terms “heart arrest” and “biomarkers” and the text words “cardiac arrest,” “neuron specific enolase,” “coma” and “prognosis.” Cohort studies with comatose cardiac arrest survivors aged >16 years undergoing targeted temperature management (TTM) and NSE levels within 96 hours of resuscitation were included. Poor outcome was defined as cerebral performance category 3–5 at hospital discharge or later. Studies without extractable contingency tables were excluded. A multiple thresholds meta-analysis model was used to generate summary receiver operating characteristic curves for various time points. NSE thresholds (and 95% prediction intervals) for >95% specificity were calculated. Evidence appraisal was performed using a method adapted from the American Academy of Neurology grading criteria.
Results Data from 11 studies (n = 1,982) at 0–24 hours, 21 studies (n = 2,815) at 24–48 hours, and 13 studies (n = 2,557) at 48–72 hours was analyzed. Areas under the curve for prediction of poor outcomes were significantly larger at 24–48 hours and 48–72 hours compared to 0–24 hours (0.82 and 0.83 vs 0.64). Quality of evidence was very low for most studies because of the risk of incorporation bias—knowledge of NSE levels potentially influenced life support withdrawal decisions. To minimize falsely pessimistic predictions, NSE thresholds at the upper 95% limit of prediction intervals are reported. For prediction of poor outcome with specificity >95%, upper limits of the prediction interval for NSE were 70.4 ng/mL at 24–48 hours and 58.6 ng/mL at 48–72 hours. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with inconsistent TTM use or different outcome criteria did not substantially alter the results.
Conclusions NSE thresholds for highly specific prediction of poor outcome are much higher than generally used. Future studies must minimize bias by masking treatment teams to the results of potential predictors and by prespecifying criteria for withdrawal of life support.
Glossary
- AUC=
- area under the curve;
- CI=
- confidence interval;
- CPC=
- cerebral performance category;
- ERC=
- European Resuscitation Council;
- FPR=
- false positive rate;
- GCS=
- Glasgow Coma Scale;
- GOSE=
- Glasgow Outcome Scale–extended;
- MGOS=
- modified Glasgow Outcome Scale;
- mRS=
- modified Rankin Scale;
- NSE=
- neuron-specific enolase;
- PLR=
- positive likelihood ratio;
- PRISMA=
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses;
- ROSC=
- return of spontaneous circulation;
- SROC=
- summary receiver operating characteristic;
- TTM=
- targeted temperature management
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received March 7, 2021.
- Accepted in final form October 4, 2021.
- © 2021 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
