Uso de la electroencefalografía urgente por el neurólogo de guardia: utilidad en el diagnóstico del estatus epiléptico no convulsivo / Emergency electroencephalogram: Usefulness in the diagnosis of nonconvulsive status epilepticus by the on-call neurologist

Introducción: Estudio que describe la experiencia en el uso del electroencefalograma urgente (EEGurg) por la guardia de neurología ante la sospecha de estatus epiléptico no convulsivo (EENC) y en otras indicaciones en un hospital terciario. Sujetos y métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de los registros de EEG de 8 canales realizados con carácter urgente en pacientes hospitalizados y en Urgencias e interpretados por la guardia de neurología entre julio del 2013 y mayo del 2015. Se recogieron las siguientes variables: sexo, edad, síntomas, diagnóstico inicial, epilepsia previa y causa, ictus previo, neoplasia, tomografía computarizada cerebral urgente, diagnóstico tras EEGurg, actitud terapéutica, evolución, EEG convencional (EEGc) de control y diagnóstico definitivo. Se analizaron los datos de frecuencia, así como la sensibilidad y especificidad en el diagnóstico de EENC. Resultados: Se recogieron 135 registros de EEGurg realizados a 129 pacientes, el 51,4% hombres, edad mediana 69 años. En 112 casos (83%) la indicación fue descartar EENC por alteración del nivel de consciencia 42 (37,5%), del comportamiento 38 (33,9%) y del lenguaje 32 (28,5%). En 37 (33%) registros se informó como EENC, siendo este el diagnóstico definitivo en 35 (94,6%). En otros 3 casos, el EENC se diagnosticó en el EEGc de control tras pasar desapercibido en la valoración del EEGurg por la guardia. El EEGurg en el diagnóstico del EENC presenta una sensibilidad del 92,1%, una especificidad del 97,2%, un valor predictivo positivo del 94,6% y un valor predictivo negativo del 96% tomando como referencia el diagnóstico al alta. Conclusiones: En nuestra experiencia, en un contexto clínico adecuado, el EEGurg utilizado por la guardia de neurología es una herramienta sensible y específica en el diagnóstico del EENC (AU)

Introduction: We aim to describe the use of emergency electroencephalogram (EmEEG) by the on-call neurologist when nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is suspected, and in other indications, in a tertiary hospital. Subjects and methods: Observational retrospective cohort study of emergency EEG (EmEEG) recordings with 8-channel systems performed and analysed by the on-call neurologist in the emergency department and in-hospital wards between July 2013 and May 2015. Variables recorded were sex, age, symptoms, first diagnosis, previous seizure and cause, previous stroke, cancer, brain computed tomography, diagnosis after EEG, treatment, patient progress, routine control EEG (rEEG), and final diagnosis. We analysed frequency data, sensitivity, and specificity in the diagnosis of NCSE. Results: The study included 135 EEG recordings performed in 129 patients; 51.4% were men and their median age was 69 years. In 112 cases (83%), doctors ruled out suspected NCSE because of altered level of consciousness in 42 (37.5%), behavioural abnormalities in 38 (33.9%), and aphasia in 32 (28.5%). The EmEEG diagnosis was NCSE in 37 patients (33%), and this was confirmed in 35 (94.6%) as the final diagnosis. In 3 other cases, NCSE was the diagnosis on discharge as confirmed by rEEG although the EmEEG missed this condition at first. EmEEG performed to rule out NCSE showed 92.1% sensitivity, 97.2% specificity, a positive predictive value of 94.6%, and a negative predictive value of 96%. Conclusions: Our experience finds that, in an appropriate clinical context, EmEEG performed by the on-call neurologist is a sensitive and specific tool for diagnosing NCSE (AU)

Emergency electroencephalogram: Usefulness in the diagnosis of nonconvulsive status epilepticus by the on-call neurologist. / Uso de la electroencefalografía urgente por el neurólogo de guardia: utilidad en el diagnóstico del estatus epiléptico no convulsivo.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to describe the use of emergency electroencephalogram (EmEEG) by the on-call neurologist when nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is suspected, and in other indications, in a tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective cohort study of emergency EEG (EmEEG) recordings with 8-channel systems performed and analysed by the on-call neurologist in the emergency department and in-hospital wards between July 2013 and May 2015. Variables recorded were sex, age, symptoms, first diagnosis, previous seizure and cause, previous stroke, cancer, brain computed tomography, diagnosis after EEG, treatment, patient progress, routine control EEG (rEEG), and final diagnosis. We analysed frequency data, sensitivity, and specificity in the diagnosis of NCSE. RESULTS: The study included 135 EEG recordings performed in 129 patients; 51.4% were men and their median age was 69 years. In 112 cases (83%), doctors ruled out suspected NCSE because of altered level of consciousness in 42 (37.5%), behavioural abnormalities in 38 (33.9%), and aphasia in 32 (28.5%). The EmEEG diagnosis was NCSE in 37 patients (33%), and this was confirmed in 35 (94.6%) as the final diagnosis. In 3 other cases, NCSE was the diagnosis on discharge as confirmed by rEEG although the EmEEG missed this condition at first. EmEEG performed to rule out NCSE showed 92.1% sensitivity, 97.2% specificity, a positive predictive value of 94.6%, and a negative predictive value of 96%. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience finds that, in an appropriate clinical context, EmEEG performed by the on-call neurologist is a sensitive and specific tool for diagnosing NCSE.

Off-hour effects on stroke care and outcome in stroke centres.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Poorer stroke care processes and outcomes have been reported for acute stroke patients arriving at centres during off hours and weekends. OBJECTIVE: To compare each step of the continuous specialized care that Stroke Centres (SC) provide according to time of admission and final outcome. METHODS: Observational study of consecutive stroke patients admitted to SC during 2008 and 2009. Patients were classified into two groups according to their arrival time: Work Hours (WH) and Off Hour (OH) (weekends and any time other than 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on weekdays). Differences in time to diagnostic procedures, tPA administration, stroke outcome [modified Rankin Scale, (mRS)] and in-hospital fatality rates were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 912 patients were admitted. Data from 674 patients fulfilling study criteria were analysed. A total of 434 (64.4%) patients arrived during OH. No differences in stroke severity were found when comparing OH and WH. Time to blood test results was higher for WH (median 67 min vs. 47 min; P < 0.01), but time to cranial CT scan was similar. Intravenous tPA was administered to 58 (16.4%) OH vs. 26 (13.1%) WH patients (P = 0.33). OH arrival was not associated with poorer outcome (mRS ≥ 3) at discharge (32.8% vs. 37%; P = 0.27), or at the 3-month follow-up (30.6% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.52). No differences were found for in-hospital fatality rates (5.8% vs. 5.4%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The care provided by SC with neurologists on call 24/7 prevents differences in outcomes associated with time of admission and guarantees equal attention to stroke patients.