NeurOptics | Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double‑blinded study
pupil, pupil exam, pupil examination, pupil pressure measurement, pupil reaction, pupillary, pupillary light reflex, pupillometer, pupillometry, stroke, TBI, trauma, constriction velocity, critical care, critical care nursing, intraocular pressure, modified rankin scale, neurocritical care, neurologist, neuroscience nursing, neurosurgeon, medical devices, NIH Stroke Scoring Scale, NIHSS, ophth, ophthalmic, ophthalmic surgery, ophthalmologist, ophthalmology, opthal, optometrist to ophthalmologist, PERL
17550
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17550,single-format-standard,vcwb,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-title-hidden,hide_top_bar_on_mobile_header,qode-theme-ver-16.0,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.7,vc_responsive

Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double‑blinded study

Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double‑blinded study

 

Category: Critical Care

 

Mauro Oddo1 , Claudio Sandroni2, Giuseppe Citerio3,4, John‑Paul Miroz1, Janneke Horn5, Malin Rundgren6, Alain Cariou7,8, Jean‑François Payen9, Christian Storm10, Pascal Stammet11 and Fabio Silvio Taccone12  Understanding the Relationship Between the Neurologic Pupil Index and Constriction Velocity Values

 

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the ability of quantitative pupillometry [using the Neurological Pupil index (NPi)] to predict an unfavorable neurological outcome after cardiac arrest (CA).

Methods: We performed a prospective international multicenter study (10 centers) in adult comatose CA patients. Quantitative NPi and standard manual pupillary light reflex (sPLR)—blinded to clinicians and outcome assessors—were recorded in parallel from day 1 to 3 after CA. Primary study endpoint was to compare the value of NPi versus sPLR to predict 3-month Cerebral Performance Category (CPC), dichotomized as favorable (CPC 1–2: full recovery or moderate disability) versus unfavorable outcome (CPC 3–5: severe disability, vegetative state, or death).

Results: At any time between day 1 and 3, an NPi ≤ 2 (n = 456 patients) had a 51% (95% CI 49–53) negative predictive value and a 100% positive predictive value [PPV; 0% (0–2) false-positive rate], with a 100% (98–100) specificity and 32% (27–38) sensitivity for the prediction of unfavorable outcome. Compared with NPi, sPLR had significantly lower PPV and significantly lower specificity (p < 0.001 at day 1 and 2; p = 0.06 at day 3). The combination of NPi ≤ 2 with bilaterally absent somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP; n = 188 patients) provided higher sensitivity [58% (49–67) vs. 48% (39–57) for SSEP alone], with comparable specificity [100% (94–100)].

Conclusions: Quantitative NPi had excellent ability to predict an unfavorable outcome from day 1 after CA, with no false positives, and significantly higher specificity than standard manual pupillary examination. The addition of NPi to SSEP increased sensitivity of outcome prediction, while maintaining 100% specificity.

Keywords: Pupillometry, Pupillary reactivity, Neurological pupil index, Outcome, Cardiac arrest, Prognostication