R to detect a difference was low. In our study, sensitivity

R to detect a difference was low. In our study, sensitivity of poor outcome detection by GWR 97 g/L NSE 97 g/L SSEP absent SSEP detected SSEP absent and/or NSE > 97 g/L SSEP detected and NSE 97 g/L SSEP detected or NSE PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15501003 64.7 52.5 53.7 42.5 48.9 65.0 61.0 55.0 55.0 52.5 53.7 35.0 45.8 Sensitivity NPVbiased by patient selection and should be interpreted with care. Nonetheless our data argue for a prospective study investigating the prognostic value of GWR beyond six hours after cardiac arrest. Since many CTs in our study were performed within the first few hours following admission, it is unlikely that hypothermia had substantially influenced the GWR in this subset of patients. However, as hypothermia changes the course of pathophysiological events leading to definite tissue damage in the days after cardiac arrest, it is still possible that hypothermia influences the relationship between early GWR and neurological outcome. Survival with good outcome may be possible in hypothermia patients despite a more severe early injury. Hence, re-evaluation of the prognostic value of GWR for hypothermia patients is mandatory, before GWR can be integrated into pathways for management of these patients.Comparison with other outcome parametersIf one accepts a prediction approach that uses a single parameter for poor outcome prediction, the combination of NSE and SSEP increases the sensitivity for detection of poor outcome. Apparently, a relevant number of patients with poor outcome are detected by NSE but not by SSEP and vice versa. If NSE and SSEP are performed, GWR Capivasertib approach that requires a second confirmatory parameter, GWR has an additional predictive value.Limitations of our studyThe lower sensitivity of GWR 24 h after admission.Due to the retrospective design of our study, we could only investigate the subset of patients who had received CCT (n = 111,.