loading page

The First national survey on Practices of Neurological Prognostication after Cardiac Arrest in China, still a lot to do
  • +11
  • lanfang du,
  • kang zheng,
  • lu feng,
  • yu Cao,
  • zhendong niu,
  • zhenju Song,
  • zhi Liu,
  • xiaowei Liu,
  • Xudong Xiang,
  • qidi Zhou,
  • hui Xiong,
  • fengying Chen,
  • guoqiang Zhang,
  • qingbian ma
lanfang du
Peking University Third Hospital
Author Profile
kang zheng
Peking University Third Hospital
Author Profile
lu feng
Peking University Third Hospital
Author Profile
yu Cao
West China Hospital, Administration Building
Author Profile
zhendong niu
West China Hospital
Author Profile
zhenju Song
Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University
Author Profile
zhi Liu
The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University
Author Profile
xiaowei Liu
The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University
Author Profile
Xudong Xiang
Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University
Author Profile
qidi Zhou
Peking University Shenzhen Hospital
Author Profile
hui Xiong
Peking University First Hospital
Author Profile
fengying Chen
The Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University
Author Profile
guoqiang Zhang
China-Japan Friendship Hospital
Author Profile
qingbian ma
The Peking University Third Hospital
Author Profile


Aims: To investigate current practices and problems of neurological prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 1600 emergency physicians in 75 hospitals which were selected randomly from China between January and July 2018. Results: 92.1% respondents fulfilled the survey. The details of the neurological prognosis were not well understood. The predictive value of brain stem reflex, motor response and myoclonus was confirmed by 63.5%, 44.6% and 31.7% respondents respectively. Only 30.7% knew that GWR value <1.1 indicated poor prognosis and only 8.1% know the most commonly used SSEP N20. Epileptiform, burst suppression, and isoelectric was considered to predict poor outcome by 35.0%, 27.4% and 45.7% respondents. 46.7% knew NSE, and only 24.7% knew S-100β. Only a few respondents knew that neurological prognostication should be performed later than 72h from CA either in TTM or non-TTM patients. In practice, the most commonly used method was clinical examination (85.4%). 67.9% had used brain CT for prognosis, and 18.4% for MRI. NSE (39.6%) was a little more widely used than S-100β (18.0%). However, SSEP (4.4%) and EEG (11.4%) were occasionally performed. The survey may have been subject to bias ascertainment as only university affiliated hospitals and university teaching hospitals were selected, making it likely that the degree of neuroprognostication awareness and practice reflected in our survey is an optimistic perspective. Conclusions: Neurological prognostication in CA survivors had not been well understood and performed by emergency physicians in China. They were more likely to use clinical examination rather than objective tools, especially SSEP and EEG, which also illustrated that multimodal approach was not well performed in practice.

Peer review status:Published

06 Jul 2020Submitted to International Journal of Clinical Practice
10 Jul 2020Submission Checks Completed
10 Jul 2020Assigned to Editor
11 Jul 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
31 Jul 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
16 Sep 20201st Revision Received
16 Sep 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 Sep 2020Submission Checks Completed
16 Sep 2020Assigned to Editor
23 Sep 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
04 Oct 2020Editorial Decision: Accept
23 Oct 2020Published in International Journal of Clinical Practice. 10.1111/ijcp.13759