Efficacy of delivery of care with Tele-continuous EEG in critically ill patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Tele-cRCT study) study.
Details
Download: 39773282.pdf (1387.01 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Serval ID
serval:BIB_289527986D55
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Efficacy of delivery of care with Tele-continuous EEG in critically ill patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Tele-cRCT study) study.
Journal
Critical care
ISSN
1466-609X (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1364-8535
Publication state
Published
Issued date
07/01/2025
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
29
Number
1
Pages
15
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Multicenter Study
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
Continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) has been recommended in critically ill patients although its efficacy for improving patients' functional status remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Tele-cEEG with Tele-routine EEG (Tele-rEEG), in terms of seizure detection rate, mortality and functional outcomes.
This study is a 3-year randomized, controlled, parallel, multicenter trial, conducted in eight regional hospitals across Thailand. Eligible participants were critically ill patients aged ≥ 15 years and at-risk for developing nonconvulsive seizure (NCS)/nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). Study interventions were 24-72 h Tele-cEEG versus 30-min Tele-rEEG. Study outcomes were seizure detection rate, mortality and functional outcomes (mRS), assessed at hospital discharge, ≤ 7 days, 3-, 6-, 9-months and 1 year.
Two hundred and fifty-four patients were randomized, 128 and 126 patients received Tele-cEEG and Tele-rEEG, respectively. NCS/NCSE were detected more commonly in the Tele-cEEG (21.88%) than Tele-rEEG arm (14.29%) but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.116). Intention-to-treat, per-protocol and as-treated analysis showed non-significant differences in mortality at all assessment periods, with corresponding mortality rates of 10.03% (Tele-cEEG) versus 10.10% (Tele-rEEG) (p = 0.894), 9.67% versus 9.06% (p = 0.833) and 10.34% versus 9.06% (p = 0.600), respectively. Functional outcome was also not significantly different in all analyses.
Both Tele-cEEG and Tele-rEEG are feasible, although Tele-EEG requires additional EEG specialists, budget, and computational resources. While Tele-cEEG may help detect NCS/NCSE, this study had limited power to detect its efficacy in reducing mortality or improving functional outcomes. In limited-resource settings, Tele-rEEG approximating 30 min or longer offers a feasible and potentially valuable initial screening tool for critically ill patients at-risk of seizures. However, where Tele-cEEG is readily available, it remains the recommended approach. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TTCTR20181022002); Registered 22 October 2018.
This study is a 3-year randomized, controlled, parallel, multicenter trial, conducted in eight regional hospitals across Thailand. Eligible participants were critically ill patients aged ≥ 15 years and at-risk for developing nonconvulsive seizure (NCS)/nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). Study interventions were 24-72 h Tele-cEEG versus 30-min Tele-rEEG. Study outcomes were seizure detection rate, mortality and functional outcomes (mRS), assessed at hospital discharge, ≤ 7 days, 3-, 6-, 9-months and 1 year.
Two hundred and fifty-four patients were randomized, 128 and 126 patients received Tele-cEEG and Tele-rEEG, respectively. NCS/NCSE were detected more commonly in the Tele-cEEG (21.88%) than Tele-rEEG arm (14.29%) but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.116). Intention-to-treat, per-protocol and as-treated analysis showed non-significant differences in mortality at all assessment periods, with corresponding mortality rates of 10.03% (Tele-cEEG) versus 10.10% (Tele-rEEG) (p = 0.894), 9.67% versus 9.06% (p = 0.833) and 10.34% versus 9.06% (p = 0.600), respectively. Functional outcome was also not significantly different in all analyses.
Both Tele-cEEG and Tele-rEEG are feasible, although Tele-EEG requires additional EEG specialists, budget, and computational resources. While Tele-cEEG may help detect NCS/NCSE, this study had limited power to detect its efficacy in reducing mortality or improving functional outcomes. In limited-resource settings, Tele-rEEG approximating 30 min or longer offers a feasible and potentially valuable initial screening tool for critically ill patients at-risk of seizures. However, where Tele-cEEG is readily available, it remains the recommended approach. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TTCTR20181022002); Registered 22 October 2018.
Keywords
Humans, Male, Female, Critical Illness/therapy, Middle Aged, Electroencephalography/methods, Electroencephalography/statistics & numerical data, Thailand, Aged, Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data, Telemedicine/standards, Adult, Seizures/diagnosis, Delivery of Health Care/standards, Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data, Status Epilepticus/diagnosis, Intensive Care Units/organization & administration, Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data, Critically ill patients, Randomized controlled trial, Tele-cRCT, Tele-continuous EEG
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
09/01/2025 16:22
Last modification date
21/01/2025 7:11