心脏骤停后脑损伤(post-cardiac arrest brain injury, PCABI)发生于心脏骤停(cardiac arrest, CA)复苏过程中及复苏之后,是导致患者死亡及神经功能障碍的主要原因[1]。循证医学表明,即使获得自主循环恢复(return of spontaneous circulation, ROSC),仍有高达70%住院患者最终死于PCABI,幸存者常遗留认知障碍、记忆减退、植物人状态等神经系统后遗症,显著损害生存质量[2]。
PCABI的病理进程具有时空异质性双相损伤模式,原发性缺血损伤发生于CA期间,脑血流量(cerebral blood flow, CBF)下降至基线的20%,低于维持细胞完整性的阈值(40%~50%)[3];继发性再灌注损伤始于ROSC后,表现为持续脑氧代谢抑制、脑自动调节功能障碍及颅内压(intracranial pressure, ICP)升高[4]。其机制涉及钙稳态失衡、自由基形成、线粒体功能障碍、神经炎症及兴奋性毒性等相互交织的级联反应,最终触发微血管障碍、血脑屏障(blood-brain barrier, BBB)破坏、能量代谢紊乱和广泛细胞死亡等[3]。这些复杂且动态演变的过程,构成了神经监测的生理学基础与干预靶点。
当前脑保护措施包括体温控制(targeted control, TC)、癫痫控制及保护性通气等[5]。但近期多项PCABI临床试验在改善结局方面无显著获益,核心原因在于现有治疗手段存在局限,缺乏针对个体损伤特征的精准调控策略。在此背景下,神经监测技术的临床转化为突破瓶颈提供了新视角。有创神经监测虽是金标准,但存在出血、感染等并发症风险,且操作门槛高,临床普适性受限。此外,部分CA患者需要接受抗凝或抗血小板治疗,这也构成了有创监测的禁忌证。因此,无创神经监测技术在PCABI管理中更具临床实用性与推广价值。
本综述聚焦无创多模态神经监测(multimodal neuromonitoring, MMM)在PCABI中的应用价值,重点涵盖神经功能评估、血清生物标志物、神经影像学、脑血流动力学、脑氧代谢、脑电生理等无创监测技术,分析其在脑生理状态评估、损伤机制解析、预后预测及个体化干预指导中的循证依据,旨在为开展临床研究及开发智能决策系统提供理论框架。
1 PCABI患者神经监测的现状 1.1 临床神经功能评估 1.1.1 神经系统体格检查神经功能评估是PCABI管理的核心环节,传统神经系统体格检查通过评估意识水平、瞳孔反射及运动反应等构建基础神经功能图谱[6],但其时效性受镇静药物与代谢紊乱等干扰。指南推荐CA后72 h进行系统评估[7]。PCABI患者意识恢复经历从昏迷、无反应觉醒综合征、最小意识状态至完全恢复,伴随恶化与恢复的动态演变[8]。意识恢复程度是患者预后的预测因素,但在低体温、镇静、休克情况下可出现延迟[9]。格拉斯哥昏迷评分(Glasgow coma scale, GCS)运动评分在排除混杂因素后对预后判断具有重要价值,2025年国际复苏联络委员会(International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, ILCOR)指南推荐,ROSC后72 h GCS运动评分 > 3分可作为神经预后评估的关键节点[7]。
1.1.2 瞳孔检查瞳孔检查作为评估脑干功能的核心要素,其价值源于中脑-脑干反射通路的解剖特异性[10]。脑干对缺氧耐受性高于大脑皮层,因此瞳孔反射缺失常提示广泛脑损伤[11],但需注意脑水肿及ICP升高等导致的假阳性。入院时瞳孔光反射与角膜反射缺失是神经不良结局的强预测因子,特别是CA后72 h,但其敏感度低(20%~30%)[12],可能由于主观评估存在偏差。
基于红外成像与智能算法的便携式瞳孔计,精确捕捉瞳孔静息时大小、收缩速度、最大收缩后大小及放松速度等参数,生成神经瞳孔指数(neurological pupil index, NPi)等客观指标[13]。研究证实NPi预测不良结局显著优于主观评估[14]。BOX研究(n=710)进一步揭示,ROSC后72 h内监测NPi < 2预测不良结局假阳性率为0%,支持早期精准预后判断[15]。在体外膜肺氧合(extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO)人群中,24 h内NPi < 3预测90 d病死率的特异度达100%[16]。但该技术的阈值界定、动态轨迹模型及与脑干-皮层网络功能耦合的机制关联仍需更多高质量证据支持。
1.2 神经生物标志物循环神经生物标志物为PCABI提供了分子评估窗口。PCABI触发神经血管单元的动态级联反应,伴随具有时间依赖特征的血液标志物释放,为损伤分层与预后评估提供分子依据。指南推荐神经元特异性烯醇化酶(neuron-specific enolase, NSE)作为核心预后标志物[7]。新型潜在生物标志物有tau蛋白、神经丝光轻链(neurofilament light, NfL)、神经胶质纤维酸性蛋白、泛素羧基水解酶L1[17-18]、非编码小RNA分子(如miR-9-3P)[19]等,各类标志物具有独特的动力学特征,直接影响最佳检测时间、解读方式及应用,其临床转化仍需大样本研究验证。
NSE主要分布于神经元及神经内分泌细胞内。生理状态下血清及脑脊液含量极低,ROSC后48~72 h达峰,此时间窗预测效能更优[20],指南建议将血清NSE > 60 μg/L作为不良结局阈值[7]。Meta分析证实NSE可用于预后分层以指导个体化决策[21]。然而,其检测易受溶血干扰[22],在ECMO、连续性肾脏替代治疗等治疗中需结合溶血指数校正[23]。2025年ILCOR指南进一步建议,ROSC后72 h内NSE < 17 μg/L联合其他监测手段综合评估良好神经预后[7]。
轴突损伤标志物的突破性进展提升了预后评估效能。一项纳入10 567例CA患者的Meta分析证实,ROSC后48 h NfL预测不良神经结局效能最佳(AUC=0.92),且在TC亚组中保持稳定[17],具有良好临床转化潜力。但由于其通过BBB的弥散有限,需要超灵敏检测方法。
当前阈值界定、采样时间标准化缺乏共识。单一标志物预测能力有限,与影像学等整合可提高准确性。此外,外泌体miRNA等表观遗传标志物虽揭示PCABI新调控机制,但检测稳定性与生物学功能仍需验证。
1.3 神经影像学评估 1.3.1 CTCT凭借快速成像、普及度高等优势,在PCABI早期评估中占据重要地位。6 h内可有效识别神经源性病因(如出血性卒中、外伤),非神经源性损伤早期表现为灰白质分界模糊、基底池消失和脑沟回结构淡化等征象。此外,CT灌注扫描可提供半定量脑血流、局部脑血流动力学差异等[24],为脑血流动力学特征提供客观影像学证据。灰白质比值已获最新ILCOR指南推荐[7],多在基底神经节、半卵圆中心和高凸面水平进行评估。在ROSC后24~72 h基底节区灰白质比值< 1.18预测不良神经结局性能最优[25]。但CT最佳测量时间窗、阈值及技术标准尚未共识,且存在分辨率局限、辐射暴露及早期缺血敏感性不足等局限。
1.3.2 核磁共振成像(Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI)与CT相比,MRI通过多序列成像提供更精准的脑损伤评估。弥散加权成像中细胞毒性水肿呈高信号,伴表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC)降低[26]。最新指南推荐ADC用于预后判断[7]。前瞻性研究证实ADC=650×10-6 mm2/s可有效区分PCABI预后[27],且中央后回平均ADC值预测效能最优[28]。循证证据支持CA后2~7 d为MRI最佳评估窗[29],但传统MRI对病情不稳定患者适用性有限。床旁低场便携式MRI技术克服了这一局限。研究证实,其在ECMO患者中应用安全[30],对缺血病灶检出敏感度优于CT,但其分辨率与信噪比仍需优化[31]。
血氧水平依赖功能MRI通过MRI信号检测神经活动引起的血氧变化评估神经血管耦合[32]。前瞻性研究发现,CA后早期fMRI异常信号与神经结局显著相关(P < 0.001)[33],提示早期fMRI有助于神经预后评估。
1.4 脑血流动力学监测经颅多普勒(transcranial doppler, TCD)无创检测脑动脉血流速度,通过收缩期流速、舒张期流速、平均流速、脑血管阻力指数(cerebrovascular resistance, CVR)和搏动指数(pulsatility index, PI)间接反映脑灌注状态[34]。
CA后全脑缺血导致大脑活动和神经元活性中断,脑血流经历短暂充血期、持续全脑低灌注期,最终进入微循环延迟再灌注损伤期[35]。部分患者在ROSC后18~26 h出现迟发性脑充血,与意识障碍持续存在相关[36]。研究显示,TC早期以低灌注为主,第3天出现生理性高灌注并持续至第5~7天,预后良好者在此时间窗恢复正常[37]。上述结果证实CA后脑血流动力学变化存在个体间异质性,凸显了实时动态监测的必要性。
TCD在指导治疗中具有独特价值。DOTAC研究表明,TCD指导的干预可优化脑灌注,并改善早期神经预后(OR=2.1, 95%CI: 1.3~3.4)[38]。研究证实不同ECMO模式对脑血流动力学指标无差异[39]。TCD还能识别临界闭合压升高、CVR增加和低血流速,强调维持充足脑灌注压(cerebral perfusion pressure, CPP)的神经保护意义[40]。创伤性脑损伤领域B-ICONIC共识亦推荐采用TCD指导治疗以优化重症监护管理[41]。需指出,TCD的准确测量高度依赖操作者技能,亟待建立及推广标准化操作流程。
1.5 颅内压监测PCABI患者伴发颅内高压的核心机制涉及细胞毒性与血管源性脑水肿。细胞毒性水肿始于CA后脑有氧代谢停止及三磷酸腺苷耗竭,钠/钾离子泵功能障碍,细胞肿胀及细胞外间隙减少。此过程累及星形胶质细胞和血管内皮细胞、破坏BBB,蛋白、水渗入脑实质,触发血管源性水肿[42]。此外,继发性炎症进一步加重脑水肿[43]。
1.5.1 TCDTCD以大脑中动脉为生物压力传感器[44],ICP升高时表现为舒张期流速下降、波形峰值及PI升高(PI > 1.2)[45]。多中心研究显示,ROSC后12 h PI升高与不良神经结局显著相关(P=0.01)[37]。Cardim等[46]研究显示,TCD预测PCABI颅高压效能优于有创监测(AUC 0.91 vs. 0.75),凸显无创监测在ICP管理中的临床潜力。
1.5.2 视神经鞘直径(optic nerve sheath diameter, ONSD)测量超声测量ONSD是重要的ICP无创评估手段。ICP升高传递至视神经鞘内蛛网膜下腔,引起ONSD增宽[47]。研究表明ONSD与CT/MRI评估的ICP升高具有良好相关性[48],支持ONSD评估颅高压的合理性。ONSD > 6.7 mm时预测接受TC患者死亡的特异度达79%[49]。Meta分析揭示ONSD预测神经结局呈高特异度、低敏感度,但随着截断值升高敏感度降低[50],提示临床应谨慎选择截断值。
1.6 脑自动调节功能评估脑自动调节机制的深入研究为PCABI管理提供了生理学新视角。脑自动调节功能通过动态调节CVR在平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)50~150 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)范围内维持CBF稳态[51]。约1/3的PCABI患者存在自动调节功能障碍,表现为调节曲线右移、窗宽缩窄[52],意味着需要更高MAP维持足够CPP(CPP=MAP-ICP)。PCABI常伴颅内高压,若将MAP目标设定为65 mmHg可能导致脑灌注不足;而MAP过高可能导致脑组织充血,加重颅高压。BOX试验将CA患者MAP目标随机设定为77 mmHg或63 mmHg,结果显示两组90 d病死率及不良神经预后率差异无统计学意义(P=0.56)[53],综上所述统一的固定MAP目标无法匹配所有患者的病理生理需求。因此,个体化最佳MAP/CPP成为优化PCABI血流动力学管理的核心。临床研究证实,无创脑自动调节监测具备连续、精准、安全等突出优势,有助于扩大获益人群[54]。
动态脑自动调节(dynamic cerebral autoregulation, dCA)表征血压瞬间波动的CBF调控能力[55]。TCD平均脑血流速与MAP的移动相关系数为平均血流速度指数(mean flow index, Mx)可评估dCA,高Mx值与不良神经结局独立相关(OR=1.04,95%CI: 1.01~1.07,P=0.011)[56]。MAP和同步的区域脑氧饱和度(regional tissue oxygen saturation, rSO2)的皮尔逊相关系数脑血氧指数(cerebral oximetry index, COx)亦可评估dCA,COx≥0.3提示功能障碍[57],与患者死亡风险升高显著相关(HR=4.02, 95% CI: 1.82-8.85, P < 0.001)[58]。
MAP与ICP的移动相关系数压力反应指数(pressure reacitivity index, PRx)正值时提示调节功能受损[59]。前瞻性研究表明,通过PRx-MAP U形曲线最低点可确定个体最佳MAP目标值[60]。系统综述揭示,PCABI患者最佳MAP范围70~114 mmHg,普遍高于指南推荐下限(65 mmHg)[61],印证个体差异显著及个体化MAP设定的重要性。以PRx、COx等参数动态滴定最佳MAP的策略,可优化脑灌注并减少继发性脑损伤,其临床效益正在多项临床试验(NCT05486884、NCT05564754、NCT06601842)中开展前瞻性验证。
1.7 脑氧代谢监测脑氧级联反应包括对流输送、扩散氧输送与线粒体氧代谢利用三个关键阶段。氧经脑毛细血管网络扩散到脑实质,维持脑组织氧分压 > 20 mmHg,最终在线粒体低氧分压(2~3 mmHg)下驱动三磷酸腺苷合成维持能量稳态[62]。CA后任一环节受损都可导致继发性脑损伤,目前改善脑氧已成为改善PCABI预后的重要策略[63],脑氧监测技术为个体化治疗提供关键依据。
近红外光谱法(near-infrared spectroscopy, NIRS)是一种无创、实时脑氧监测技术,通过检测额叶组织内氧合血红蛋白与脱氧血红蛋白的光吸收差异计算rSO2,反映局部脑氧供-需动态平衡。NIRS在CA复苏链中展现出重要价值。复苏期间NIRS波形变化与胸外按压周期存在关联性,且与按压质量高低相关。较高rSO2与实现ROSC显著相关(P < 0.001),提示早期恢复脑氧储备利于复苏成功,并与ROSC后6个月良好神经结局相关(P=0.004)[64]。ECMO支持患者rSO2每降低10%与病死率增加30%相关(RD=-0.30, 95%CI: -0.47~-0.14),支持rSO2作为ECMO期间脑氧代谢的实时动态监测指标[65]。此外,NIRS监测可指导MAP调整、氧疗优化等复苏策略,改善脑氧合并促进神经功能恢复。但NIRS准确性受颅外组织、颅骨厚度、血红蛋白浓度、环境光等因素干扰[66]。未来需开发标准化信号校正算法(如颅外血流补偿模型)及MMM体系(联合TCD等),提升其在个体化治疗决策中的可靠性。
1.8 神经电生理监测 1.8.1 脑电图(electroencephalography,EEG)EEG背景模式具有重要预后价值。背景抑制(伴或不伴周期性放电)及爆发-抑制模式即“高度恶性”模式可预示不良结局[67]。连续且反应性背景活动为“良性”模式,是良好神经结局敏感标志,在ROSC后24 h内预测性能最佳[68]。CA后EEG节律逐渐减慢,CBF降至皮层梗死阈值以下时呈现等电位改变[69],提示EEG可间接反映CBF变化,作为脑灌注目标的潜在终点。
10%~35% PCABI患者可出现癫痫样放电(尖波或棘波),反复或节律性出现提示癫痫样活动。合并肌阵挛、眼偏斜和眼球震颤时为电临床癫痫发作[70]。连续出现 > 10 min或占60 min期间≥20%可诊断癫痫持续状态。研究证实背景连续性恢复时间窗至关重要,早期(< 24 h)恢复者良好预后概率较晚期(> 24 h)提升6倍。早期癫痫样活动使不良结局风险增加5倍,表明背景恢复越早,癫痫样活动出现越晚,预后越佳[71]。
EEG对指导抗癫痫药物应用至关重要。持续癫痫发作可增加脑代谢负荷、加重兴奋性毒性与继发性脑损伤,积极干预具有潜在获益。2025年AHA指南建议对明显癫痫发作患者给予抗癫痫药物(Ⅰ类推荐),对仅通过EEG确诊的亚临床发作治疗合理(Ⅱa类推荐),不推荐预防性用药[72]。然而,荷兰多中心研究显示,积极抗癫痫治疗组相对常规组,未能显著改善患者3个月病死率及不良神经结局率(P=0.68)[73]。这一阴性结果可能受生命支持撤除决策、镇静药物等混杂因素影响。未来需依托更严谨设计的临床试验或MMM[7],进一步明确抗癫痫治疗的神经保护价值。
1.8.2 体感诱发电位(somatosensory evoked potentials, SSEP)SSEP通过刺激外周神经(如正中神经、尺神经)在特定感觉神经传导通路记录电生理信号,客观评估丘脑-皮层环路功能完整性。N9波异常提示周围性损伤,P14/N20波异常提示中枢性损伤。双侧N9/N13存在,双侧P14、N18和N20消失时,则提示脑死亡[74]。
目前临床主要刺激腕部正中神经获得上肢短潜伏期SSEP评估神经预后。顶叶初级躯体感觉皮质产生N20波是核心指标,其存在依赖完整皮层和丘脑[75]。指南将ROSC后72 h双侧N20缺失列为不良预后的可靠预测因子[76]。但意大利多中心研究(n=403)揭示,高振幅N20(> 3μV)预测良好神经结局的敏感度为61%(95%CI: 50%~72%),低振幅预测敏感度达73%(95%CI: 66%~80%),显著高于双侧缺失的预测敏感度(53%)。双侧N20波存在但不良结局者,可能涉及皮层下白质传导延迟或神经网络同步性受损[77]。镇静药物对SSEP参数干扰较小,但低温治疗(< 34 ℃)可抑制皮层反应,限制其在低温期间的评估价值。
2 无创MMM对PCABI患者神经功能预后评估的作用多模态策略评估PCABI神经预后至关重要。过早或不准确的预后判断会导致过早撤除生命支持,显著增加患者病死率及致残率,因此临床实践中应采用多模态方式评估神经预后,个体化延长观察周期,避免错过有康复潜力的患者。一项134例接受治疗性低温CA患者的研究,联合临床检查、EEG、脑氧监测及NSE进行综合评估,预测病死率的AUC达0.89,预测不良神经预后的AUC为0.88,阳性预测值达100%[78],证实无创MMM显著提升预后判断准确性。当前指南推荐MMM策略应用于PCABI管理[7]。从评估维度来看,生物标志物、影像学可提供结构损伤证据,电生理学检查、临床检查可提供功能损伤证据。无创MMM整合多维参数可实现个体脑损伤机制的深入解析与损伤表型的精准识别,进而提升预后预测效能,动态勾勒患者可能的康复轨迹,为合离延长治疗观察时间窗、避免过早撤除生命支持提供循证依据。
3 无创MMM对PCABI患者治疗管理的价值多项优化脑氧供策略的临床试验(NEUROPROTECT[79]、COMACARE[80])未获得临床获益证据,有力佐证了基于MMM指导个体化治疗管理的潜在核心价值。无创MMM同步捕捉脑氧、脑血流、颅内压与脑电活动的动态关联,精准定位脑损伤核心机制,指导如控制颅内压以优化脑灌注、结合脑氧监测调整氧供需平衡等靶向干预,依据脑电图变化实时评估干预效果,实现“监测-判断-干预-验证”闭环管理。一项系统评价证实,78%研究支持MMM管理策略改善包括PCABI在内的急性脑损伤患者的临床结局[81]。在ECMO支持患者中,MMM监测可提高脑损伤检出率(23% vs. 33%,P=0.12)和改善神经功能预后(54% vs. 30%,P=0.04)[82]。但当前MMM相关证据多来自观察性研究或样本量较小[83-84],支持无创MMM改善PCABI患者神经预后的高级别证据有限,且缺乏统一的CA后多模态管理策略。
在调查无创MMM应用于我国CA管理现况的问卷中发现,联合应用四种无创监测技术(TCD、EEG、ONSD和NIRS)的比例仅11.9%,且高达89.0%临床医师计划引入或增加MMM应用,这一现象既揭示了当前无创MMM应用的显著不足,也为进一步的推广奠定了实践基础[85]。为填补证据空白,作者团队正在开展一项多中心随机对照试验(NCT06711016),旨在评估无创MMM目标导向策略对优化PCABI脑保护及改善神经功能预后的效能。
PCABI的高度时空异质性决定其有效管理必须依赖于超越传统单一模式的多维、动态、整合神经监测策略,尤其对识别潜在康复患者、早期启动靶向干预及维持合理生命支持具有重要意义。随着指南更新及新证据累计,PCABI神经预后评估实践或将发生范式转变。本综述系统梳理了各类无创神经监测技术在PCABI中的应用进展,多数证据支持无创技术具有重要临床应用潜力。无创MMM整合互补的生理、代谢及电活动信息,为深入理解个体化脑损伤机制,实现表型分析与动态干预提供了强大工具,初步研究显示出其可改善预后。然而,当前无创MMM的核心挑战包括技术整合壁垒、关键参数阈值缺乏共识、临床决策支持工具不足及高级别循证证据的匮乏。未来应着眼于开展大规模临床试验,验证神经监测指导的精准治疗策略;探索脑机接口技术在CA救治中的应用;开发人工智能驱动的精准决策体系,推动个体化脑保护模式的临床转化,最终提高PCABI患者的生存率及神经功能良好率。
利益冲突 所有作者声明无利益冲突
本文思维导图请登录中华急诊网(www.cem.org.cn)浏览(Html格式全文)
| [1] | Sandroni C, Cronberg T, Sekhon M. Brain injury after cardiac arrest: pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2021, 47(12): 1393-1414. DOI:10.1007/s00134-021-06548-2 |
| [2] | Perkins GD, Callaway CW, Haywood K, et al. Brain injury after cardiac arrest[J]. Lancet, 2021, 398(10307): 1269-1278. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00953-3 |
| [3] | Perkins GD, Neumar R, Hsu CH, et al. Improving outcomes after post–cardiac arrest brain injury: a scientific statement from the international liaison committee on resuscitation[J]. Resuscitation, 2024, 201: 110196. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110196 |
| [4] | Hoiland RL, Ainslie PN, Wellington CL, et al. Brain hypoxia is associated with neuroglial injury in humans post–cardiac arrest[J]. Circ Res, 2021, 129(5): 583-597. DOI:10.1161/circresaha.121.319157 |
| [5] | Nolan JP, Sandroni C, Böttiger BW, et al. European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2021: post-resuscitation care[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2021, 47(4): 369-421. DOI:10.1007/s00134-021-06368-4 |
| [6] | Kazazian K, Edlow BL, Owen AM. Detecting awareness after acute brain injury[J]. Lancet Neurol, 2024, 23(8): 836-844. DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00209-6 |
| [7] | Drennan IR, Berg KM, Böttiger BW, et al. Advanced life support: 2025 international liaison committee on resuscitation consensus on science with treatment recommendations[J]. Circulation, 2025, 152(16_suppl_1): S72-S115.. DOI:10.1161/cir.0000000000001360 |
| [8] | Kondziella D, Amiri M, Othman MH, et al. Understanding, detecting, and stimulating consciousness recovery in the ICU[J]. Acta Neurochir, 2023, 165(4): 809-828. DOI:10.1007/s00701-022-05378-5 |
| [9] | Paul M, Bougouin W, Geri G, et al. Delayed awakening after cardiac arrest: prevalence and risk factors in the Parisian registry[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2016, 42(7): 1128-1136. DOI:10.1007/s00134-016-4349-9 |
| [10] | Hartig J, Nickl V, Vollmuth C, et al. Pearls & oy-sters: INO plus from downward herniation: a cautionary tale regarding neuro-ophthalmologic signatures of brainstem compression[J]. Neurology, 2024, 102(10): e209421. DOI:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209421 |
| [11] | Brisson CD, Hsieh YT, Kim D, et al. Brainstem neurons survive the identical ischemic stress that kills higher neurons: insight to the persistent vegetative state[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(5): e96585. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0096585 |
| [12] | Slovis JC, Bach A, Beaulieu F, et al. Neuromonitoring after pediatric cardiac arrest: cerebral physiology and injury stratification[J]. Neurocrit Care, 2024, 40(1): 99-115. DOI:10.1007/s12028-023-01685-6 |
| [13] | Rajajee V. Noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring: are we there yet?[J]. Neurocrit Care, 2024, 41(2): 332-338. DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-01951-1 |
| [14] | Oddo M, Sandroni C, Citerio G, et al. Quantitative versus standard pupillary light reflex for early prognostication in comatose cardiac arrest patients: an international prospective multicenter double-blinded study[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(12): 2102-2111. DOI:10.1007/s00134-018-5448-6 |
| [15] | Nyholm B, Grand J, Obling LER, et al. Validating quantitative pupillometry thresholds for neuroprognostication after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A predefined substudy of the Blood Pressure and Oxygenations Targets After Cardiac Arrest (BOX)-trial[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2024, 50(9): 1484-1495. DOI:10.1007/s00134-024-07574-6 |
| [16] | Miroz JP, Ben-Hamouda N, Bernini A, et al. Neurological pupil index for early prognostication after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation[J]. Chest, 2020, 157(5): 1167-1174. DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2019.11.037 |
| [17] | Hoiland RL, Rikhraj KJK, Thiara S, et al. Neurologic prognostication after cardiac arrest using brain biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. JAMA Neurol, 2022, 79(4): 390. DOI:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.5598 |
| [18] | Arctaedius I, Levin H, Thorgeirsdóttir B, et al. Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein and tau: predictors of neurological outcome after cardiac arrest[J]. Crit Care, 2024, 28(1): 116. DOI:10.1186/s13054-024-04889-0 |
| [19] | Beske RP, Bache S, Abild Stengaard Meyer M, et al. microRNA-9-3p: a novel predictor of neurological outcome after cardiac arrest[J]. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2022, 11(8): 609-616. DOI:10.1093/ehjacc/zuac066 |
| [20] | Humaloja J, Ashton NJ, Skrifvars MB. Brain injury biomarkers for predicting outcome after cardiac arrest[J]. Crit Care, 2022, 26(1): 81. DOI:10.1186/s13054-022-03913-5 |
| [21] | Kurek K, Swieczkowski D, Pruc M, et al. Predictive performance of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) for survival after resuscitation from cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Med, 2023, 12(24): 7655. DOI:10.3390/jcm12247655 |
| [22] | Genet SAAM, Wolfs JRE, Vu CBAK, et al. Analysis of Neuron–Specific enolase isozymes in human serum using immunoaffinity purification and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry quantification[J]. J Chromatogr B, 2023, 1223: 123701. DOI:10.1016/j.jchromb.2023.123701 |
| [23] | Mastroianni A, Panella R, Morelli D. Invisible hemolysis in serum samples interferes in NSE measurement[J]. Tumori, 2020, 106(1): 79-81. DOI:10.1177/0300891619867836 |
| [24] | Alcock S, Singh S, Wiens EJ, et al. CT perfusion for Assessment of poor Neurological outcome in Comatose Cardiac Arrest Patients (CANCCAP): protocol for a prospective study[J]. BMJ Open, 2023, 13(6): e071166. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071166 |
| [25] | Wang GN. Timing of brain computed tomography for predicting neurological prognosis in comatose cardiac arrest survivors: a retrospective observational study[J]. World J Emerg Med, 2022, 13(5): 349-354. DOI:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.080 |
| [26] | Hirsch KG, Fischbein N, Mlynash M, et al. Prognostic value of diffusion-weighted MRI for post-cardiac arrest Coma[J]. Neurology, 2020, 94(16): e1684-e1692. DOI:10.1212/wnl.0000000000009289 |
| [27] | Wouters A, Scheldeman L, Plessers S, et al. Added value of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient values for neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest[J]. Neurology, 2021, 96(21): e2611-e2618. DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000011991 |
| [28] | Nolan JP, Sandroni C, Cariou A, et al. European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2025: post-resuscitation care[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2025, 51(12): 2213-2288. DOI:10.1007/s00134-025-08117-3 |
| [29] | Cho SM, Wilcox C, Keller S, et al. Assessing the SAfety and FEasibility of bedside portable low-field brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging in patients on ECMO (SAFE-MRI ECMO study): study protocol and first case series experience[J]. Crit Care, 2022, 26(1): 119. DOI:10.1186/s13054-022-03990-6 |
| [30] | Cho SM, Khanduja S, Wilcox C, et al. Clinical use of bedside portable Ultra–Low-field brain magnetic resonance imaging in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from the multicenter SAFE MRI ECMO Study[J]. Circulation, 2024, 150(24): 1955-1965. DOI:10.1161/circulationaha.124.069187 |
| [31] | Beekman R, Crawford A, Mazurek MH, et al. Bedside monitoring of hypoxic ischemic brain injury using low-field, portable brain magnetic resonance imaging after cardiac arrest[J]. Resuscitation, 2022, 176: 150-158. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.05.002 |
| [32] | Hayes G, Pinto J, Sparks S, et al. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound validation of BOLD-fMRI cerebral blood flow relationship[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2026, 95(2): 939-950. DOI:10.1002/mrm.70091 |
| [33] | Shao R, Wang T, Hang CC, et al. Alteration in early resting-state functional MRI activity in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort study[J]. Crit Care, 2024, 28(1): 260. DOI:10.1186/s13054-024-05045-4 |
| [34] | Lau VI, Jaidka A, Wiskar K, et al. Better with ultrasound transcranial Doppler[J]. Chest, 2020, 157(1): 142-150. DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.2204 |
| [35] | Allen CP, Bird JD, Sekhon MS. The dynamic pathophysiology of post cardiac arrest brain injury: "time is brain"[J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2025: 123-130. DOI:10.1097/mcc.0000000000001246 |
| [36] | Cohan SL, Mun SK, Petite J, et al. Cerebral blood flow in humans following resuscitation from cardiac arrest[J]. Stroke, 1989, 20(6): 761-765. DOI:10.1161/01.str.20.6.761 |
| [37] | Reichenbach A, Alteheld L, Henriksen J, et al. Transcranial Doppler during the first week after cardiac arrest and association with 6-month outcomes[J]. Front Neurol, 2023, 14: 1222401. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2023.1222401 |
| [38] | Rafi S, Tadie JM, Gacouin A, et al. Doppler sonography of cerebral blood flow for early prognostication after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: DOTAC study[J]. Resuscitation, 2019, 141: 188-194. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.05.024 |
| [39] | Caturegli G, Zhang LQ, Mayasi Y, et al. Characterization of cerebral hemodynamics with TCD in patients undergoing VA-ECMO and VV-ECMO: a prospective observational study[J]. Neurocritical Care, 2023, 38(2): 407-413. DOI:10.1007/s12028-022-01653-6 |
| [40] | Brasil S, de Carvalho Nogueira R, Salinet ÂSM, et al. Critical closing pressure and cerebrovascular resistance responses to intracranial pressure variations in neurocritical patients[J]. Neurocritical Care, 2023, 39(2): 399-410. DOI:10.1007/s12028-023-01691-8 |
| [41] | Hawryluk GWJ, Aguilera S, Buki A, et al. A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2019, 45(12): 1783-1794. DOI:10.1007/s00134-019-05805-9 |
| [42] | Stokum JA, Gerzanich V, Simard JM. Molecular pathophysiology of cerebral edema[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2016, 36(3): 513-538. DOI:10.1177/0271678X15617172 |
| [43] | Yu JP, Zhang BZ, Yang X, et al. Channels and transporters in ischemic brain edema[J]. J Inflamm Res, 2025, 18: 3025-3038. DOI:10.2147/JIR.S503231 |
| [44] | Bertuetti R, Gritti P, Pelosi P, et al. How to use cerebral ultrasound in the ICU[J]. Minerva Anestesiol, 2020, 86(3): 327-340. DOI:10.23736/s0375-9393.19.13852-7 |
| [45] | Lemiale V, Huet O, Vigué B, et al. Changes in cerebral blood flow and oxygen extraction during post-resuscitation syndrome[J]. Resuscitation, 2008, 76(1): 17-24. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.06.028 |
| [46] | Cardim D, Griesdale DE, Ainslie PN, et al. A comparison of non-invasive versus invasive measures of intracranial pressure in hypoxic ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest[J]. Resuscitation, 2019, 137: 221-228. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.01.002 |
| [47] | Hirzallah MI, Lochner P, Hafeez MU, et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter point-of-care ultrasonography quality criteria checklist: an international consensus statement on optic nerve sheath diameter imaging and measurement[J]. Crit Care Med, 2024, 52(10): 1543-1556. DOI:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006345 |
| [48] | Srilekha A, Sharma RM, Sasidharan S, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter to detect raised intracranial pressure in adult head injury patients in the intensive care unit and its correlation with computed tomography scan findings[J]. MRIMS J Health Sci, 2021, 9(3): 89-95. DOI:10.4103/mjhs.mjhs_29_21 |
| [49] | Chelly J, Deye N, Guichard JP, et al. The optic nerve sheath diameter as a useful tool for early prediction of outcome after cardiac arrest: a prospective pilot study[J]. Resuscitation, 2016, 103: 7-13. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.03.006 |
| [50] | Jafari Khouzani P, Rahmani E, Rezaei M, et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter in predicting the neurological outcomes of cardiac arrest survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Arch Acad Emerg Med, 2025, 13(1): e29. DOI:10.22037/aaemj.v13i1.2486 |
| [51] | Bird JD, MacLeod DB, Griesdale DE, et al. Shining a light on cerebral autoregulation: Are we anywhere near the truth?[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2024, 44(6): 1057-1060. DOI:10.1177/0271678x241245488 |
| [52] | Sekhon MS, Griesdale DE. Individualized perfusion targets in hypoxic ischemic brain injury after cardiac arrest[J]. Crit Care, 2017, 21(1): 259. DOI:10.1186/s13054-017-1832-9 |
| [53] | Roedl K, Kluge S. Blood-pressure targets in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest[J]. N Engl J Med, 2023, 388(3): 285. DOI:10.1056/NEJMc2215179 |
| [54] | Gritti P, Bonfanti M, Zangari R, et al. Cerebral autoregulation in traumatic brain injury: ultra-low-frequency pressure reactivity index and intracranial pressure across age groups[J]. Crit Care, 2024, 28(1): 33. DOI:10.1186/s13054-024-04814-5 |
| [55] | Simpson DM, Payne SJ, Panerai RB. The INfoMATAS project: Methods for assessing cerebral autoregulation in stroke[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2022, 42(3): 411-429. DOI:10.1177/0271678x211029049 |
| [56] | Crippa IA, Vincent JL, Zama Cavicchi F, et al. Cerebral autoregulation in anoxic brain injury patients treated with targeted temperature management[J]. J Intensive Care, 2021, 9(1): 67. DOI:10.1186/s40560-021-00579-z |
| [57] | Sekhon MS, Smielewski P, Bhate TD, et al. Using the relationship between brain tissue regional saturation of oxygen and mean arterial pressure to determine the optimal mean arterial pressure in patients following cardiac arrest: a pilot proof-of-concept study[J]. Resuscitation, 2016, 106: 120-125. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.05.019 |
| [58] | Tachino J, Nonomiya Y, Taniuchi S, et al. Association between time-dependent changes in cerebrovascular autoregulation after cardiac arrest and outcomes: a prospective cohort study[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2023, 43(11): 1942-1950. DOI:10.1177/0271678x231185658 |
| [59] | Bögli SY, Beqiri E, Olakorede I, et al. Unlocking the potential of high-resolution multimodality neuromonitoring for traumatic brain injury management: lessons and insights from cases, events, and patterns[J]. Crit Care, 2025, 29(1): 139. DOI:10.1186/s13054-025-05360-4 |
| [60] | Vitt JR, Tsetsou S, Galarza L, et al. Determination of cerebral autoregulation at the bedside: a narrative review[J]. Crit Care Med, 2025, 53(10): e2062-e2075. DOI:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006790 |
| [61] | Rikhraj KJK, Wood MD, Hoiland RL, et al. Determining optimal mean arterial pressure after cardiac arrest: a systematic review[J]. Neurocritical Care, 2021, 34(2): 621-634. DOI:10.1007/s12028-020-01027-w |
| [62] | Hoiland RL, Robba C, Menon DK, et al. Clinical targeting of the cerebral oxygen cascade to improve brain oxygenation in patients with hypoxic–ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2023, 49(9): 1062-1078. DOI:10.1007/s00134-023-07165-x |
| [63] | Shao R, Hang CC, Wang XS, et al. The "SOOTEST-ICU" bundle for optimizing cerebral hypoxia and reperfusion to minimize brain injury after resuscitation from cardiac arrest[J]. World J Emerg Med, 2025, 16(3): 206-211. DOI:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2025.050 |
| [64] | Kornfehl A, Veigl C, Stowasser P, et al. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) during and after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Aust Crit Care, 2026, 39(2): 101534. DOI:10.1016/j.aucc.2026.101534 |
| [65] | Bertini P, Marabotti A, Paternoster G, et al. Regional cerebral oxygen saturation to predict favorable outcome in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2023, 37(7): 1265-1272. DOI:10.1053/j.jvca.2023.01.007 |
| [66] | Skrifvars MB, Sekhon M, Åneman EA. Monitoring and modifying brain oxygenation in patients at risk of hypoxic ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest[J]. Crit Care, 2021, 25(1): 312. DOI:10.1186/s13054-021-03678-3 |
| [67] | Turella S, Dankiewicz J, Friberg H, et al. The predictive value of highly malignant EEG patterns after cardiac arrest: evaluation of the ERC-ESICM recommendations[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2024, 50(1): 90-102. DOI:10.1007/s00134-023-07280-9 |
| [68] | Fenter H, Ben-Hamouda N, Novy J, et al. Benign EEG for prognostication of favorable outcome after cardiac arrest: a reappraisal[J]. Resuscitation, 2023, 182: 109637. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.11.003 |
| [69] | Sekhon MS, Taccone FS, Skrifvars MB, et al. Clinical heterogeneity and phenotyping of post cardiac arrest brain injury: one size may not fit all[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2025, 51(7): 1240-1255. DOI:10.1007/s00134-025-08012-x |
| [70] | 中国医师协会神经外科医师分会神经电生理监测学组, 中国研究型医院学会临床神经电生理专委会, 中国人体健康科技促进会重症脑损伤专业委员会. 神经重症患者的神经电生理监测与评估专家共识(2024版)[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2024, 104(23): 2113-2122. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20231016-00776 |
| [71] | Westhall E, Rosén I, Rundgren M, et al. Time to epileptiform activity and EEG background recovery are independent predictors after cardiac arrest[J]. Clin Neurophysiol, 2018, 129(8): 1660-1668. DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2018.05.016 |
| [72] | Hirsch KG, Amorim E, Coppler PJ, et al. Part 11: post–cardiac arrest care: 2025 American heart association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care[J]. Circulation, 2025, 152(16_suppl_2)): S673-S718. DOI:10.1161/cir.0000000000001375 |
| [73] | Ruijter BJ, Keijzer HM, Tjepkema-Cloostermans MC, et al. Treating rhythmic and periodic EEG patterns in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest[J]. N Engl J Med, 2022, 386(8): 724-734. DOI:10.1056/nejmoa2115998 |
| [74] | 国家卫生健康委员会脑损伤质控评价中心, 中华医学会神经病学分会神经重症协作组, 中国医师协会神经内科医师分会神经重症专业委员会. 中国成人脑死亡判定标准与操作规范(第二版)[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2019, 99(17): 1288-1292. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2019.17.003 |
| [75] | Sandroni C, Grippo A, Westhall E. The role of the electroencephalogram and evoked potentials after cardiac arrest[J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2023, 29(3): 199-207. DOI:10.1097/mcc.0000000000001031 |
| [76] | Rajajee V, Muehlschlegel S, Wartenberg KE, et al. Guidelines for neuroprognostication in comatose adult survivors of cardiac arrest[J]. Neurocrit Care, 2023, 38(3): 533-563. DOI:10.1007/s12028-023-01688-3 |
| [77] | Scarpino M, Lolli F, Lanzo G, et al. SSEP amplitude accurately predicts both good and poor neurological outcome early after cardiac arrest; a post-hoc analysis of the ProNeCA multicentre study[J]. Resuscitation, 2021, 163: 162-171. DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.03.028 |
| [78] | Oddo M, Rossetti AO. Early multimodal outcome prediction after cardiac arrest in patients treated with hypothermia[J]. Crit Care Med, 2014, 42(6): 1340-1347. DOI:10.1097/ccm.0000000000000211 |
| [79] | Ameloot K, De Deyne C, Eertmans W, et al. Early goal-directed haemodynamic optimization of cerebral oxygenation in comatose survivors after cardiac arrest: the Neuroprotect post-cardiac arrest trial[J]. Eur Heart J, 2019, 40(22): 1804-1814. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz120 |
| [80] | Jakkula P, Reinikainen M, Hästbacka J, et al. Targeting two different levels of both arterial carbon dioxide and arterial oxygen after cardiac arrest and resuscitation: a randomised pilot trial[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(12): 2112-2121. DOI:10.1007/s00134-018-5453-9 |
| [81] | Tas J, Czosnyka M, van der Horst ICC, et al. Cerebral multimodality monitoring in adult neurocritical care patients with acute brain injury: a narrative review[J]. Front Physiol, 2022, 13: 1071161. DOI:10.3389/fphys.2022.1071161 |
| [82] | Ong CS, Etchill E, Dong J, et al. Neuromonitoring detects brain injury in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support[J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2023, 165(6): 2104-2110. e1. DOI:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.09.063 |
| [83] | Fergusson NA, Hoiland RL, Thiara S, et al. Goal-directed care using invasive neuromonitoring versus standard of care after cardiac arrest: a matched cohort study[J]. Crit Care Med, 2021, 49(8): 1333-1346. DOI:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004945 |
| [84] | Xia WP, Ai ML, Ma XH, et al. Application of high-quality targeted temperature management guided by multimodal brain monitoring in brain protection of patients with cardiac arrest: a case series[J]. Medicine, 2024, 103(51): e40943. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000040943 |
| [85] | Ren YK, Nie XX, Liu HY, et al. Noninvasive multimodal neuromonitoring in patients with post-cardiac arrest brain injury: a survey from China's intensive care units[J]. Crit Care, 2025, 29(1): 69. DOI:10.1186/s13054-025-05293-y |
2026, Vol. 35



