Neuron-Specific Enolase and S100B: The Earliest Predictors of Poor Outcome in Cardiac Arrest
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Proper prognostication is critical in clinical decision-making following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, only a few prognostic tools with reliable accuracy are available within the first 24 h after admission. Aim: To test the value of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and S100B protein measurements at admission as early biomarkers of poor prognosis after OHCA. Methods: We enrolled 82 consecutive patients with OHCA who were unconscious when admitted. NSE and S100B levels were measured at admission, and routine blood tests were performed. Death and poor neurological status at discharge were considered as poor clinical outcomes. We evaluated the optimal cut-off levels for NSE and S100B using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Results: High concentrations of both biomarkers at admission were significantly associated with an increased risk of poor clinical outcome (NSE: odds ratio [OR] 1.042 per 1 ng/dL, [1.007−1.079; p = 0.004]; S100B: OR 1.046 per 50 pg/mL [1.004−1.090; p < 0.001]). The dual-marker approach with cut-off values of ≥27.6 ng/mL and ≥696 ng/mL for NSE and S100B, respectively, identified patients with poor clinical outcomes with 100% specificity. Conclusions: The NSE and S100B-based dual-marker approach allowed for early discrimination of patients with poor clinical outcomes with 100% specificity. The proposed algorithm may shorten the time required to establish a poor prognosis and limit the volume of futile procedures performed.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Neuron-Specific Enolase and S100B: The Earliest Predictors of Poor Outcome in Cardiac Arrest
- Date Crossref
- 22/04/2022
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.