Cerebrospinal fluid features in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: A pilot study

Résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar puncture is among the investigations used to identify various neurological conditions, including some that can cause cardiac arrest (CA). However, CA per se may alter cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) characteristics. Few studies have investigated CSF findings after CA. In this descriptive work, we assessed the frequency and risk factors of abnormal CSF findings after CA and the contribution of CSF analysis to the etiological diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied data from prospectively established databases of consecutive patients who were admitted to two French ICUs in 2007-2016 with sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after CA and who underwent lumbar puncture as an etiological investigation. RESULTS: Of 1984 patients with sustained ROSC, 55 (2.7%) underwent lumbar puncture and were included. Lumbar puncture identified a neurological cause of CA in 2/55 (3.6%) patients. Nonspecific CSF abnormalities were noted in 37/53 (69.8%) patients. By multivariate analysis, postresuscitation shock was positively associated with CSF abnormalities (OR, 6.92; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.62-37.26; P = 0.013). A no-flow time above 6 minutes (OR, 0.19; 95%CI, 0.03-1.11; P = 0.076) and a respiratory cause of CA (OR, 2.91; 95%CI, 0.53-23.15; P = 0.24) were not statistically associated with CSF abnormalities. Nonspecific CSF abnormalities were not significantly associated with poor outcomes (Cerebral Performance Category ≥3; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar puncture, although infrequently performed, may contribute to the etiological diagnosis of CA, albeit rarely. Nonspecific CSF abnormalities seem common after CA, notably with postresuscitation shock, and may be related to blood-brain barrier disruption. These findings may help to interpret CSF findings after CA. Further studies are warranted to assess our results.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.