Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
CPC 2025
CPC 2026
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
The role of neuron-specific enolase as a predictor of neurological recovery and functional status in a selected cardiac intensive care unit population
Session:
Sessão de Posters 40 - Pós-paragem cardíaca e desfechos na UCI cardíaca
Speaker:
Margarida Urpina Matias
Congress:
CPC 2026
Topic:
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
Theme:
14. Acute Cardiac Care
Subtheme:
14.3 Acute Cardiac Care – CCU, Intensive, and Critical Cardiovascular Care
Session Type:
Posters Eletrónicos
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Margarida Urpina Matias; Rita Barbosa; Maria Inês Soares; Raquel Montalvão; João Machado; Márcia Presume; Ana Rita Bello; Mariana Sousa Paiva; João Presume; Jorge Ferreira; Catarina Brízido
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><u>Background</u></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">: Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) is a biomarker of neuronal injury with strong prognostic value for neurologic outcome after sudden cardiac arrest (CA). Recommended cutoffs in the 2025 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines derive from several studies, but a universal threshold is lacking. </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><u>Purpose</u></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">: To evaluate NSE performance as a prognostic predictor in CA intensive care unit (CICU) cohort; to define optimal NSE cutoffs, comparing with guideline-recommended values.</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><u>Methods</u></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">: Retrospective analysis of consecutive CICU patients admitted after in-hospital or out-of-hospital CA (IHCA or OHCA), between 2015-2025. Comatose patients (GCS<8) with multimodal neuroprognostication and NSE at 24, 48, and 72 hours after ROSC were included. Neuroprognosis followed ERC criteria. Neurological status at 30 days was classified according to the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale, as good (CPC 1-2) or poor (CPC 3–5), and disability by modified Rankin Scale (mRS). ROC curves identified optimal NSE cutoffs for CPC 3-5 and mRS≥4 and estimated positive predictive value (PPV).</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><u>Results</u></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">: 94 patients (mean age 62 ± 17 y, 66% male) were included, 32% had ICHA and 68% OHCA. Mean no-flow time was 1.8, median low-flow time was 15 [8.5-18.8], and time to ROSC 25 [16-40] min. A shockable rhythm was present in 65%, 70% underwent coronary angiography, and 6% had a non-cardiac cause for CA. Among 90 patients completing neuroprognostication, a third had poor prognosis, 37% were indeterminate, and 7% were brain dead. At 30 days, 71% had CPC 3-5, and 68% significant functional dependence (mRS≥4). Mortality at 30 days was 62%.</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">Median NSE values at 24, 48 and 72 hours were 49 [32-91], 45 [25-122] and 41 [23-101] ng/mL, respectively. NSE values were significantly higher in patients with very likely poor neuroprognosis; and in CPC 3-5 (122 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>vs</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> 39, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p=0.0005</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">, 162 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>vs</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> 32, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p <0.0001</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> and 145 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>vs </em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">28, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p = 0.0005</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">; 58 vs 36, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p=0.007</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">, 46 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>vs</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p =0.0001</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> and 45 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>vs </em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">22, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p = 0.005; </em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">respectively).</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">NSE at 48h showed highest accuracy for predicting poor CPC and mRS≥4 (AUC 0.89, p<0.001). The optimal 48h cutoff of 25 ng/mL (Youden index) yielded 72–75% specificity, 89% sensitivity and 91–92% PPV. Higher 48h NSE values further increased PPV, with 48.5 ng/mL providing 100% PPV and specificity but 54% sensitivity. NSE at 24 and 72 h also performed well (AUC>0.7, p<0.05). A 48 h level >60 ng/mL, as currently recommended, had 100% PPV for CPC 3–5 and mRS≥4. </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><u>Conclusion(s)</u></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">: In this CICU CA cohort, NSE showed good prognostic performance at all recommended time points, with maximal accuracy at 48 h. A cutoff of 48.5ng/mL at 48 hours was the most accurate for predicting poor CPC and mRS ≥4 at 30 days, slightly lower than guideline-recommended values, suggesting population-dependent cutoffs and reinforcing the importance of multimodal neuroprognostication.</span></span></span></p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site