RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Continuous EEG (cEEG) practice has markedly changed over the last decade given its utility in improving critical care outcomes. However, there are limited data describing the current cEEG infrastructure in US hospitals. METHODS: A web-based cEEG practice survey was sent to neurophysiologists at 123 ACGME-accredited epilepsy or clinical neurophysiology programs. RESULTS: Neurophysiologists from 100 (81.3%) institutions completed the survey. Most institutions had 3 to 10 EEG faculty (80.0%), 1 to 5 fellows (74.8%), ≥6 technologists (84.9%), and provided coverage to neurology ICUs with >10 patients (71.0%) at a time. Round-the-clock EEG technologist coverage was available at most (90.0%) institutions with technologists mostly being in-house (68.0%). Most institutions without after-hours coverage (8 of 10) attributed this to insufficient technologists. The typical monitoring duration was 24 to 48 hours (23.0 and 40.0%), most commonly for subclinical seizures (68.4%) and spell characterization (11.2%). Larger neurology ICUs had more EEG technologists ( p = 0.02), fellows ( p = 0.001), and quantitative EEG use ( p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This survey explores current cEEG practice patterns in the United States. Larger centers had more technologists and fellows. Overall technologist numbers are stable over time, but with a move toward more in-hospital compared with home-based coverage. Reduced availability of EEG technologists was a major factor limiting cEEG availability at some centers.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Surgical intervention for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is a safe and efficacious evidence-based treatment. Yet, neurologists have historically revealed hesitance in referring patients for surgical evaluations. The present study surveyed general neurologists and epilepsy specialists to assess their views and process in referring patients for specialized epilepsy care and epilepsy surgery. METHODS: A 14-item survey assessing epilepsy referrals and views of epilepsy surgery was distributed to all neurologists currently practicing in a large national integrated health system using REDCap. Responses were qualitatively analyzed and differences between general neurologists and epileptologists were assessed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: In total, 100 responses were received from 67 general neurologists and 33 epileptologists with several similarities and differences emerging between the two groups. Both groups endorsed surgery and neuromodulation as treatment options in DRE, felt that seizure frequency rather than duration was relevant in considering epilepsy surgery, and indicated patient preference as the largest barrier limiting epilepsy surgery. General neurologists were more likely to require ≥ 3 ASMs to fail to diagnose DRE compared to epileptologists (45% vs. 15%, p < 0.01) who more often required ≥ 2 ASMs to fail. Epileptologists were also more likely than neurologists to try a new ASM (75.8% vs. 53.7%, p < 0.05) or optimize the current ASM (75.8% vs. 49.3%, p < 0.05) in DRE. General neurologists were more likely to consider epilepsy surgery to be less efficacious (p = 0.001) or less safe (p < 0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, neurologists appear to have generally positive opinions of epilepsy surgery, which is a change from prior literature and represents a changing landscape of views toward this intervention. Furthermore, epileptologists and general neurologists endorsed more similarities than differences in their opinions of surgery and steps to referral, which is another encouraging finding. Those gaps that remain between epileptologists and general neurologists, particularly in standards of ASM prescription, may be addressed by more consistent education about DRE and streamlining of surgical referral procedures.
Assuntos
Epilepsia Resistente a Medicamentos , Epilepsia , Humanos , Neurologistas , Epilepsia/diagnóstico , Epilepsia/cirurgia , Escolaridade , EmoçõesRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) treated with anesthetic agents can be associated with complications including respiratory depression and hypotension. Ketamine is an emerging RSE treatment, but optimal dosing and timing are unknown. We studied provider attitudes and practices regarding the use of ketamine for RSE. METHODS: A literature review informed the creation of the survey, developed by professionals in epilepsy, pharmacy, and neurocritical care. The survey was distributed to members of the Critical Care EEG Monitoring and Research Consortium, Neurocritical Care Society, American Academy of Neurology Synapse community, American Epilepsy Society, and the Canadian League Against Epilepsy. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: There were 109 respondents. First-line agents for RSE were midazolam (53%), propofol (42%), pentobarbital (2%), and ketamine (1%). Reasons for ketamine use included failure of midazolam/propofol to control seizures (81%) or hypotension on another anesthetic (35%). Perceived contraindications included hypertension (37%), elevated intracranial pressure (24%), and heart failure (18%). Perceived benefits included decreased use of vasopressors (53%) and more rapid RSE control when used adjunctively (49%). Routine ketamine users often treated more than 10 RSE cases per year, worked as intensivists or at academic institutions. Of the respondents, 59% found ketamine useful for RSE and 94% were interested in learning more about its use. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants found ketamine helpful for RSE, it is mainly used as a second-line agent adjunctively with midazolam or propofol. Perceived ketamine benefits included decreased need for hemodynamic support and more rapid seizure control when used in conjunction with other anesthetics. Perceived contraindications centered on cardiac and intracranial pressure concerns.