| Title |
The Influence of Therapeutics on Prognostication After Cardiac Arrest
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Neurology, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11940-019-0602-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sachin Agarwal, Nicholas Morris, Caroline Der-Nigoghossian, Teresa May, Daniel Brodie |
| Abstract |
The goal of this review is to highlight the influence of therapeutic maneuvers on neuro-prognostication measures administered to comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. We focus on the effect of sedation regimens in the setting of targeted temperature management (TTM), one of the principle interventions known to improve neurological recovery after cardiac arrest. Further, we discuss the critical need for novel markers, as well as refinement of existing markers, among patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the setting of failed conventional resuscitation, known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). Automated pupillometry may have some advantage over standard pupillary examination for prognostication following TTM, sedation, or the use of ECMO after cardiac arrest. New serum biomarkers such as Neurofilament light chain have shown good predictive abilities and need further validation in these populations. There is a high-level uncertainty in brain death declaration protocols particularly related to apnea testing and appropriate ancillary tests in patients receiving ECMO. Both sedation and TTM alone and in combination have been shown to affect prognostic markers to varying degrees. The optimal approach to analog-sedation is unknown, and requires further study. Moreover, validation of known prognostic markers, as well as brain death declaration processes in patients receiving ECMO is warranted. Data on the effects of TTM, sedation, and ECMO on biomarkers (e.g., neuron-specific enolase) and electrophysiology measures (e.g., somatosensory-evoked potentials) is sparse. The best approach may be one customized to the individual patient, a precision-medicine approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 21% |
| Spain | 2 | 11% |
| Italy | 2 | 11% |
| Argentina | 1 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Egypt | 1 | 5% |
| Qatar | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 16% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 21% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,919,550
of 23,177,498 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#64
of 472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,883
of 458,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,177,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 458,620 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.