Continuous versus Routine Electroencephalography in the Intensive Care Unit: A Review of Current Evidence.
Détails
Télécharger: Manuscript.pdf (295.09 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Author's accepted manuscript
Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Etat: Public
Version: Author's accepted manuscript
Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
ID Serval
serval:BIB_F227C70C08D8
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Sous-type
Synthèse (review): revue aussi complète que possible des connaissances sur un sujet, rédigée à partir de l'analyse exhaustive des travaux publiés.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Continuous versus Routine Electroencephalography in the Intensive Care Unit: A Review of Current Evidence.
Périodique
European neurology
ISSN
1421-9913 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0014-3022
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2024
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
87
Numéro
1
Pages
17-25
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Review
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
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.
Mots-clé
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
Oui
Création de la notice
18/12/2023 15:16
Dernière modification de la notice
03/04/2024 6:20