Predicting neurological outcome after cardiac arrest by combining computational parameters extracted from standard and deviant responses from auditory evoked potentials

Aymeric Floyrac,Adrien Doumergue,Stéphane Legriel,Nicolas Deye,Bruno Megarbane,Alexandra Richard,Elodie Meppiel,Sana Masmoudi,Pierre Lozeron,Eric Vicaut,Nathalie Kubis,David Holcman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.988394

2023-02-15

Abstract:Background: Despite multimodal assessment (clinical examination, biology, brain MRI, electroencephalography, somatosensory evoked potentials, mismatch negativity at auditory evoked potentials), coma prognostic evaluation remains challenging. Methods: We present here a method to predict the return to consciousness and good neurological outcome based on classification of auditory evoked potentials obtained during an oddball paradigm. Data from event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded noninvasively using four surface electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes in a cohort of 29 post-cardiac arrest comatose patients (between day 3 and day 6 following admission). We extracted retrospectively several EEG features (standard deviation and similarity for standard auditory stimulations and number of extrema and oscillations for deviant auditory stimulations) from the time responses in a window of few hundreds of milliseconds. The responses to the standard and the deviant auditory stimulations were thus considered independently. By combining these features, based on machine learning, we built a two-dimensional map to evaluate possible group clustering. Results: Analysis in two-dimensions of the present data revealed two separated clusters of patients with good versus bad neurological outcome. When favoring the highest specificity of our mathematical algorithms (0.91), we found a sensitivity of 0.83 and an accuracy of 0.90, maintained when calculation was performed using data from only one central electrode. Using Gaussian, K-neighborhood and SVM classifiers, we could predict the neurological outcome of post-anoxic comatose patients, the validity of the method being tested by a cross-validation procedure. Moreover, the same results were obtained with one single electrode (Cz). Conclusion: statistics of standard and deviant responses considered separately provide complementary and confirmatory predictions of the outcome of anoxic comatose patients, better assessed when combining these features on a two-dimensional statistical map. The benefit of this method compared to classical EEG and ERP predictors should be tested in a large prospective cohort. If validated, this method could provide an alternative tool to intensivists, to better evaluate neurological outcome and improve patient management, without neurophysiologist assistance.