BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the predictive ability of S100B, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antibodies (NR2Ab) and C-reactive protein (CRP) for neurological deficits after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). METHODS: We investigated 557 high-risk adult patients who underwent coronary artery or valve replacement surgery using CPB as a substudy of a prospective, blinded, multicenter clinical trial. Serum concentrations of S100B (n=513 patients), NR2Ab (n=398) and CRP (n=510) were measured preoperatively, 24 and 48 hours after CPB. Neurological adverse events were assessed at baseline and postoperative days 1 and 2; neurocognitive function (mini-mental status examination) was assessed at baseline and on postoperative days 1, 7 and 28. RESULTS: Fifty-five (9.9%) patients had moderate or severe neurological adverse events (confusion/delirium, transient ischemic attack, or stroke) within 48 hours of CPB. Women had significantly more neurological complications than men (15.5% versus 7.8%; P=0.007). Ninety-six percent (24/25) of patients with NR2Ab concentrations > or =2.0 ng/mL preoperatively had neurological complications within 48 hours post-CPB, versus only 5.4% (20/373) of patients with NR2Ab concentrations <2.0 ng/mL, resulting in a 17.9-fold increase (95% CI, 11.6 to 27.6) in postoperative neurological complications for patients with high levels of NR2A antibodies. Preoperative serum S100B and CRP did not predict neurological complications from CPB. Decreased mini-mental status examination scores for orientation, attention and recall were associated with neurological adverse events early after CPB. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative serum concentrations of NR2Ab, but not S100B or CRP, are predictive of severe neurological adverse events after CPB. Patients with a positive NR2Ab test (> or =2.0 ng/mL) preoperatively were nearly 18 times more likely to experience a postoperative neurological event than patients with a negative test (<2.0 ng/mL).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bokesch et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: