Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Oct 1;49(10):1790-1799.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005045.

Neuroprognostic Accuracy of Quantitative Versus Standard Pupillary Light Reflex for Adult Postcardiac Arrest Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chih-Hung Wang  1   2 , Cheng-Yi Wu  1 , Carolyn Chia-Yu Liu  3 , Tzu-Chun Hsu  1 , Michael A Liu  4 , Meng-Che Wu  1 , Min-Shan Tsai  1   2 , Wei-Tien Chang  1   2 , Chien-Hua Huang  1   2 , Chien-Chang Lee  1   2 , Shyr-Chyr Chen  1   2 , Wen-Jone Chen  1   2   5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Neuroprognostic Accuracy of Quantitative Versus Standard Pupillary Light Reflex for Adult Postcardiac Arrest Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chih-Hung Wang et al. Crit Care Med. .

Abstract

Objectives: An automated infrared pupillometer measures quantitative pupillary light reflex using a calibrated light stimulus. We examined whether the timing of performing quantitative pupillary light reflex or standard pupillary light reflex may impact its neuroprognostic performance in postcardiac arrest comatose patients and whether quantitative pupillary light reflex may outperform standard pupillary light reflex in early postresuscitation phase.

Data sources: PubMed and Embase databases from their inception to July 2020.

Study selection: We selected studies providing sufficient data of prognostic values of standard pupillary light reflex or quantitative pupillary light reflex to predict neurologic outcomes in adult postcardiac arrest comatose patients.

Data extraction: Quantitative data required for building a 2 × 2 contingency table were extracted, and study quality was assessed using standard criteria.

Data synthesis: We used the bivariate random-effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of standard pupillary light reflex or quantitative pupillary light reflex in predicting poor neurologic outcome during early (< 72 hr), middle (between 72 and 144 hr), and late (≧ 145 hr) postresuscitation periods, respectively. We included 39 studies involving 17,179 patients. For quantitative pupillary light reflex, the cut off points used in included studies to define absent pupillary light reflex ranged from 0% to 13% (median: 7%) and from zero to 2 (median: 2) for pupillary light reflex amplitude and Neurologic Pupil index, respectively. Late standard pupillary light reflex had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.98, 95% CI [CI], 0.97-0.99). For early standard pupillary light reflex, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83), with a specificity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95). For early quantitative pupillary light reflex, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.86), with a specificity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Conclusions: Timing of pupillary light reflex examination may impact neuroprognostic accuracy. The highest prognostic performance was achieved with late standard pupillary light reflex. Early quantitative pupillary light reflex had a similar specificity to late standard pupillary light reflex and had better specificity than early standard pupillary light reflex. For postresuscitation comatose patients, early quantitative pupillary light reflex may substitute for early standard pupillary light reflex in the neurologic prognostication algorithm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Wang received a grant (109-2634-F-002-041-) from the Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Hsu disclosed work for hire. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Comment in

References

    1. Ong ME, Shin SD, De Souza NN, et al.; PAROS Clinical Research Network: Outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests across 7 countries in Asia: The Pan Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study (PAROS). Resuscitation. 2015; 96:100–108
    1. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, et al.; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee: Heart disease and stroke statistics-2017 update: A report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2017; 135:e146–e603
    1. Lemiale V, Dumas F, Mongardon N, et al.: Intensive care unit mortality after cardiac arrest: The relative contribution of shock and brain injury in a large cohort. Intensive Care Med. 2013; 39:1972–1980
    1. Nolan JP, Soar J, Cariou A, et al.: European resuscitation council and european society of intensive care medicine guidelines for post-resuscitation care 2015: Section 5 of the European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2015. Resuscitation. 2015; 95:202–222
    1. Booth CM, Boone RH, Tomlinson G, et al.: Is this patient dead, vegetative, or severely neurologically impaired? Assessing outcome for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2004; 291:870–879