Etiology, Clinical Presentation, and Outcomes of Bacterial Meningitis in Adult Patients: A Retrospective Study in Lithuania (2018-2021).

BACKGROUND Bacterial meningitis is a serious and life-threatening condition that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. This retrospective study aimed to identify causes, presentation, and predictive factors for outcomes of community-acquired bacterial meningitis in 86 adults in Vilnius, Lithuania between 2018 and 2021. MATERIAL AND METHODS We performed a retrospective study of demographic, clinical, and laboratory records of 86 adult patients admitted to Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics with a diagnosis of acute bacterial meningitis during the period of 2018-2021. RESULTS Of 86 patients, 54 (62.79%) were men. The median (Md) age of patients was 58 (range, 18-83) years and the median duration of hospitalization was 20 (range, 3-92) days. Patients were first hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in 59.3% of cases. The most prevalent concerns were headache (66.28%), febrile temperature (56.98%), general fatigue (53.49%), and confusion/sleepiness (52.33%). Of 57 (66.28%) etiologically confirmed cases, the most prevalent agent was Listeria monocytogenes (29.82%), followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae (28.07%) and Neisseria meningitidis (28.07%). Patients with meningitis caused by L. monocytogenes were the oldest (P=0.003) and had the longest hospitalization (P<0.001). Fatigue was the prominent symptom in patients with meningococcal meningitis (81.2%, P=0.010). Twelve patients (13.95%) have died. Advanced age and low (<100 cells per µL) white blood cell (WBC) count in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were associated with lethal outcome, whereas headache was associated with favorable outcome. CONCLUSIONS Clinical characteristics of community-acquired acute bacterial meningitis differ based on etiological factors. Patient age, CSF WBC count, and headache may be significant predictive factors for outcomes of bacterial meningitis.

How are results of EEG activation procedures associated with patient perception of seizure provocative factors? A single-center cross-sectional pilot study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between subjectively perceived seizure provocative factors or inhibitors and objectively recorded changes in epileptiform activity (EA) during EEG activation procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consenting epilepsy patients (≥18 years old) were asked to complete a questionnaire by indicating whether items on a list provoke, inhibit or have no effect on their seizures. A scalp EEG was recorded afterwards to evaluate baseline epileptiform activity and its change (increase/decrease in frequency) during a set of activation procedures. These included hyperventilation, intermittent photic stimulation (IPS), eye-closing/eye-opening, tasks of reading aloud in a native and a foreign language, solving a Rubik's cube and crossing-out letters. We used correlation and multiple regression analysis to search for associations between the sum of self-reported provocative/inhibiting items and changes in EA. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients recruited 75 (83.3%) indicated at least one seizure provocative factor. Sleep deprivation, emotional stress, negative emotions and alcohol use were most frequently selected as provoking seizures. Positive feelings, focused thinking, mental calculation and exercising were the most predominant seizure inhibitors. EEG data revealed a weak, but statistically significant correlation with the sum of items in distinct questionnaire groups (0.20 ≤ Spearman's ρ ≤ 0.39). Sensory stimuli (olfactory, gustatory, auditory and visual), cognitive phenomena (thoughts and feelings) and substance use were found to be significantly correlated with EEG results by being self-reported as both provoking and inhibiting seizures. A statistically significant relationship was also found between the increase in EA while reading aloud in a native language and the number of physiological states (sleep deprivation, stress etc.) indicated as provoking seizures (Spearman's ρ = 0.320, P = 0.005). A suitable stepwise multiple regression model was feasible for this finding (F(3, 71) = 7.396, P < 0.001, adjusted R squared = 0.206) with the additional inclusion of EA change during IPS and epilepsy type as explanatory variables. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study indicates that there is a previously non-explored association between patients' self-perception of seizure provocative/inhibiting factors and objectively recorded changes in epileptiform activity during activation EEGs. Distinct EEG tests might be useful in activating ictogenic networks that are sensitive to indirect influence by hormonal, emotional or diurnally variable factors.