Continuous versus Routine Electroencephalography in the Intensive Care Unit: A Review of Current Evidence.
Details
Download: Manuscript.pdf (295.09 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Author's accepted manuscript
License: CC BY-NC 4.0
State: Public
Version: Author's accepted manuscript
License: CC BY-NC 4.0
Serval ID
serval:BIB_F227C70C08D8
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Publication sub-type
Review (review): journal as complete as possible of one specific subject, written based on exhaustive analyses from published work.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Continuous versus Routine Electroencephalography in the Intensive Care Unit: A Review of Current Evidence.
Journal
European neurology
ISSN
1421-9913 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0014-3022
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2024
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
87
Number
1
Pages
17-25
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Review
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) has long been used to detect seizures in patients with disorders of consciousness. In recent years, there has been a drastically increased adoption of continuous EEG (cEEG) in the intensive care units (ICUs). Given the resources necessary to record and interpret cEEG, this is still not available in every center and widespread recommendations to use continuous instead of routine EEG (typically lasting 20 min) are still a matter of some debate. Considering recent literature and personal experience, this review offers a rationale and practical advice to address this question.
Despite the development of increasingly performant imaging techniques and several validated biomarkers, EEG remains central to clinicians in the intensive care unit and has been experiencing expanding popularity for at least 2 decades. Not only does EEG allow seizure or status epilepticus detection, which in the ICU often present without clinical movements, but it is also paramount for the prognostic evaluation of comatose patients, especially after cardiac arrest, and for detecting delayed ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the end of the last Century, improvements of technical and digital aspects regarding recording and storage of EEG tracings have progressively led to the era of cEEG and automated quantitative analysis.
As compared to repeated rEEG, cEEG in comatose patients does not seem to improve clinical prognosis to a relevant extent, despite allowing a more performant of detection ictal events and consequent therapeutic modifications. The choice between cEEG and rEEG must therefore always be patient-tailored.
Despite the development of increasingly performant imaging techniques and several validated biomarkers, EEG remains central to clinicians in the intensive care unit and has been experiencing expanding popularity for at least 2 decades. Not only does EEG allow seizure or status epilepticus detection, which in the ICU often present without clinical movements, but it is also paramount for the prognostic evaluation of comatose patients, especially after cardiac arrest, and for detecting delayed ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the end of the last Century, improvements of technical and digital aspects regarding recording and storage of EEG tracings have progressively led to the era of cEEG and automated quantitative analysis.
As compared to repeated rEEG, cEEG in comatose patients does not seem to improve clinical prognosis to a relevant extent, despite allowing a more performant of detection ictal events and consequent therapeutic modifications. The choice between cEEG and rEEG must therefore always be patient-tailored.
Keywords
Humans, Coma, Seizures/diagnosis, Intensive Care Units, Status Epilepticus/diagnosis, Electroencephalography/methods, Monitoring, Physiologic/methods, Electroencephalography, Prognosis, Seizures, Status epilepticus
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
18/12/2023 15:16
Last modification date
03/04/2024 6:20