Evaluate using of middle-latency somatosensory evoked potentials in predicting outcomes of patients with severe stroke
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1006-7876.2011.01.011
- VernacularTitle:中潜伏期体感诱发电位预测重症脑卒中患者预后的应用价值
- Author:
Yan ZHANG
;
Yingying SU
;
Shuying XIAO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Stroke;
Evoked potentials,somatosensory;
Glasgow coma scale;
Prognosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Neurology
2011;44(1):38-42
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore the effectiveness of using middle-latency somatosensory evoked potentials (MLSEP) to predict the prognosis in patients with acute severe stroke. Methods MLSEP, shortlatency somatosensory evoked potentials (SLSEP), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were recorded in 70 acute severe supratentorial stroke patients within 1 week after onset. All patients were evaluated with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and follow-up in 6 months after onset. SLSEP and MLSEP were recorded in 20 normal controls. The consistency between MLSEP, SLSEP, GCS and prognosis, as well as the prognostic authenticity of MLSEP, SLSEP, and GCS were analyzed. Results Bilateral N20, N35, and N60 exited in all normal controls. Some waves of MLSEP were absent in stroke patients, and the proportion of absent waves in ipsilateral MLSEP was higher than in contralateral MLSEP. The consistency between bilateral absence of N60 and unfavorable outcome ( Kappa = 0.828, P ＜ 0.01 ), and between bilateral absence of N60 and death ( Kappa = 0.686, P ＜ 0.01 ) was satisfactory. By using the prognostic authenticity analysis of predictors, the ipsilateral absence of N60 showed the highest sensitivity ( 100% ) for unfavorable outcome and death, which added 14.3% compared with the sensitivity of ipsilateral absence of N20 ( 85.7% ). Bilateral absence of N60 showed a high specificity of 100% for unfavorable outcome, which equaled bilateral absence of N20.However, it showed a lower specificity ( 82.9% ) for death, than bilateral absence of N20 (97.1% ).Conclusions MLSEP was able to reflect the degree of brain injury and showed higher sensitivity than SLSEP for predicting unfavorable outcomes. Therefore combined use of MLSEP and SLSEP in evaluating and predicting the outcomes in brain injuries is suggested.
