A Review of the Electrophysiological Neuroprognostications after Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest

A Review of the Electrophysiological Neuroprognostications after Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

 

Comment: The word “neuroprognosticators” in the title has been changed to “neuroprognostications” to better suit the title with the manuscript.

 

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

 

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

 

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

 

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

 

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

 

Comments: The Discussion describes the pragmatic use of electrophysiological testing (EEG and SSEPs) in comatose OOHCA survivors to assess its neuroprognostic accuracy. It compares the accuracy of the Synek and standardized TTM-ACNS EEG classification systems. It highlights that the detection of seizures after cardiac arrest both therapeutically and prognostically is vital. The Conclusion recommends a multimodality approach involving neurological examination, electrophysiological tests, neuroimaging, and biochemical markers in comatose OOHCA patients when in ICU, followed a period of targeted temperature management.

 

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

 

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

 

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

 

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very Good

 

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

 

Comments: Under Introduction, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, “targeted temperature management …. both now standards of care” can be written as “targeted temperature management …. both are new standards of care.”

 

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This Review reports the recent findings of the potential role of electroencephalography (EEG) and the authors’ personal experiences in a large single-center cohort of 220 consecutive out of hospital cardiac arrest patients (OOHCA) investigated with electrophysiological tests (EEG and SSEP). It further provides a separate illustration of EEG grading after Hypoxic-Ischaemic Encephalopathy (HIF). The authors’ experience in the study well establishes the advantages and limitations of the electrophysiological techniques used.

 

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team

 
 

Author Info

Corresponding Author
Nick Kane
University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK

Article Info

Article Type
Review Article
Publication history
Received: Wed 05, May 2021
Accepted: Wed 19, May 2021
Published: Mon 31, May 2021
Copyright
© 2021 Nick Kane. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.ACR.2021.01.03